1.1. Discourse Markers
Discourse markers (henceforth, DMs) have been a central point of scholarly debate, as these linguistic elements are vital for connecting ideas and guiding interlocutors’ interpretations. As
Heine et al. (
2023) noted, their importance in shaping interaction has prompted scholars over the past decades to precisely define them and explore their functions. Early work, like
Halliday and Hasan (
1976), primarily focused on their cohesive role in linking textual segments, describing DMs as pronouns, conjunctions, and adverbs that link clauses to create cohesion. Building on this,
Schiffrin’s (
1987) influential work marked a key shift.
Schiffrin (
1987, p. 328) defined DMs as “sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk”, primarily contributing to ‘local coherence’ within conversation. This type of coherence creates links between adjacent units of talk, particularly how the same item fulfills different functions based on where it appears in the conversation.
Schiffrin (
1987) further specified DMs as syntactically detachable, often occupying an initial position, possessing a range of prosodic contours, and operating at both local and global levels across different planes of discourse.
Redeker (
1990) similarly viewed DMs as signals for specific connections between utterances and their immediate discourse context, while
Lenk (
1998, p. 246) highlighted their role in fulfilling pragmatic purposes such as structuring and organizing spoken discourse. These early studies demonstrated that DMs play a dominant role in achieving local coherence and smooth connection between adjacent discourse segments.
A major development in understanding DMs emerged with
Fraser’s (
1990,
1999,
2009) pragmatic approach. It is assumed that DMs do not only function as textual coherence but also have a pragmatic meaning, also referred to as a procedural meaning, which is linked to the speaker’s communicative intentions, but not a semantic meaning. The pragmatic meaning of DMs provides the hearer/reader with information on how to relate between the interpretations of the segment they introduce (S2), and the prior segment (S1). This linkage fulfilled by DMs contributes to the ‘global coherence’ of the text by signaling the relationship between the host utterance and the surrounding discourse situation (
Fraser, 2009, p. 296), as contrasted with
Schiffrin’s (
1987) ‘local coherence’.
Fraser (
1999) termed these elements ‘Pragmatic Markers’, describing them as flexible linguistic elements that can appear at the beginning, middle, or end of a sentence and are syntactically optional, meaning their removal does not affect the grammaticality of their hosts nor alter the propositional content of the segment. Each marker has a specific pragmatic function that, together with linguistic and non-linguistic context, helps enhance coherence and clarify relationships between parts of discourse and serving functions like contrast, elaboration, and inference (
Fraser, 2009).
The concept that DMs are multifunctional and highly dependent on context and speaker intention was established by these foundational works. For example, understanding the function of DMs often requires recognizing the speaker’s illocutionary act (what the speaker is doing with their words) within speech act theory (
Austin, 1962). A single utterance with a DM can carry different intentions depending on the situation (
Fraser, 1996,
2009). In addition, various contextual factors like participants, time, goal(s), shared knowledge, and cultural norms highly influence how DMs are interpreted and how they create meaning (
Leech, 1983;
Sperber & Wilson, 1986;
Malinowski, 1923, p. 306). Beyond explicit meaning, DMs also “provide the hearers/readers with some guidance in the inferential phase of utterance interpretation and the search for optimal relevance” (
Blackmore, 2002, p. 464). That is, DMs help listeners infer the implicit side of an utterance or make assumptions, whether expressed or implied by a preceding utterance, necessary to reach the intended meaning (
Knott & Dale, 1994;
Fox Tree & Schrock, 2002).
Referring to these fundamental works, current DM research continues to provide further evidence of this multifunctionality in communicative practices.
Al-Rousan et al. (
2020) and
Algouzi (
2021) demonstrated that DMs are recognized more frequently in spoken than in written conversations, and they make speech more sociable and friendly.
Yulianto (
2021) highlighted that DMs serve as joining elements to achieve textual coherence. More recently,
Raputri et al. (
2022) described DMs as elements that make written or spoken language more real, operative, and understandable for the receiver.
Given that DMs are basic tools for developing communication and conveying subtle meanings, there has been a recent growing interest in understanding their pragmatic functions in Arab contexts.
Alqahtani (
2023) indicated that the DMs like
baʕdɪn (meaning ‘then’) help maintain coherence in spontaneous electronic communication like Twitter. The study revealed its multifunctionality as both temporal adverb and coherence maker, expressing conditionality and orientation shift. Similarly,
Adjina and Al-Khawalda (
2024) stated that the Algerian marker
i:h (meaning ‘yes’) is context-dependent, reflecting communicative functions like praise and grief.
Studies on the pragmatic functions of DMs in Jordanian Arabic (henceforth, JA) are rich.
H. Hamdan et al. (
2025) highlighted that
ʔajwa (meaning ‘yes’ or ‘fine’) conveys social, psychological, and emotional meanings such as confirmation, encouragement, and reserved approval.
Musmar (
2024) reported that the DM
ʃikil (meaning ‘appear’ or ‘evidently’) expresses pragmatic meanings, including shared beliefs or the speaker’s indirect opinion, depending on its position in the sentence.
Al-Hanakta and Hamdan (
2024) pointed out that the DM
tama:m (meaning ‘it’s ok’) often co-occurs with gestures and body movements to support pragmatic interpretation such as ridiculing and seeking confirmation.
Altaweel and Al-Shaikhli (
2024) stated that more men than women favored using the DM
ʕandʒad (meaning ‘really’) to express both negative and positive meanings, such as anger versus sympathy. Similarly,
J. Hamdan and Abu Rumman (
2020) emphasized the importance of context in interpreting
ja:hummala:li (meaning ‘Oh my joy!’), noting its tendency to convey negative emotions like fear and condemnation. These studies, conducted in Arab and Jordanian contexts, show that DMs are context-sensitive and multipurposed.
1.2. ʔinno as a DM
One prominent DM,
ʔinno, has been investigated in Arabic, primarily functioning as a complementizer (henceforth, C) (
Cowell, 1964;
Germanos, 2010;
Habib, 2009). While its syntactic role as a C has been documented,
Germanos (
2010) was the first study to examine
Ɂinno as a DM in Lebanese Arabic. The data consisted of (217) instances of
Ɂinno collected from (7) Lebanese interviewees. In analyzing these instances, Germanos found that
Ɂinno functioned more frequently as a DM than as a C, classifying it as an innovative, emerging form in Lebanese Arabic. More importantly,
Germanos (
2010, p. 150) outlined several features of
Ɂinno as a DM as follows: (1) it links the preceding context with what follows, (2) it occurs initially or medially in an utterance, and (3) it does not link a dependent clause with a main clause, and (4) its omission does not affect the grammaticality of the sentence or its propositional meaning. Pragmatically,
Germanos (
2010) identified three main functions of
Ɂinno: reinforcing the speakers’ preceding utterance; correcting a previous utterance said by either the speaker or the addressee by adding a clarification; and focusing on a constituent that contains new information or holding the turn after being asked a question or requested to do something. When
Ɂinno appears initially, its main function is to complete the meaning of the previous utterance, by either correcting it or confirming it. When occurring medially,
Ɂinno is employed to introduce a focus that contains new information to complete the previous topic.
In its function as a C,
Germanos (
2010) revealed that
Ɂinno is used as a single morpheme despite the attached pronoun suffix /o/. Despite its productive insights into the use of
ʔinno as a DM, Germanos’s study notably did not include important details about the contexts or situations of the interviews where
Ɂinno functioned as a DM. In this light,
Verdonik et al. (
2008, p. 759) asserted that conversational texts, and contexts are interdependent, contributing to a better understating of DM usage.
Habib (
2021) investigated the DM
Ɂinno ‘that’ which is often used interchangeably with the DM
jaʕni ‘it means’ in Syrian Arabic. The study revealed that
Ɂinno is used more by children than adults and more by women than men. In this sense,
Ɂinno was thus considered a female gender indicator. The youth’s tendency to using
Ɂinno was an indicator of its high sensitivity and involvement in their daily speeches. However,
jaʕni was more prevalent among the older generation, due to its “older and more established’’ use among them (p. 255). The study revealed that while
jaʕni occurred in different syntactic positions,
Ɂinno favored the medial position to serve functions like elaboration, clarification, repair, or as a filler. Although Habib’s study (
Habib, 2021) was a foundational study that examined
Ɂinno in relation to social variables, it lacked real-life examples of how these DMs function in authentic conversations, thereby limiting the practical understanding of their functions.
The previous studies have mainly focused on the pragmatic analysis of DMs. However, the investigation of DMs in JA has been relatively limited, particularly from a syntactic perspective (
Al-Daher et al., 2024). In fact,
ʔinno as a colloquial expression has been scarcely recognized in the literature reviews of Arab context neither as a DM nor a C. Thus, this study aims to contribute to the existing body of research on DMs in Arab context, as it may be the first to provide evidence that
ʔinno functions as a DM and a C in JA.
1.3. From Standard Arabic (SA) Particles to JA ʔinno as a Complementizer
In standard Arabic (SA),
Ɂinna ‘indeed’ and its sisters (i.e.,
Ɂanna ‘that’,
la:kinna ‘but’,
kaɁanna ‘as if’,
lajjta ‘if only’, and
la-ʕalla ‘perhaps’) are accusative particles that belong to the category of ʔan-nawa:si
x (i.e., particles that change the syntactic case of the subject) (
Ryding, 2005). They introduce nominal (i.e., verbless) sentences, characterized by the absence of an overt verbal copula in the present tense (
Benmamoun, 2000). In other words, the word order following
Ɂinna and its sisters is always SVO (
Fehri, 2013;
Alsager & Mahzari, 2021). When these particles precede subjects, they assign those subjects the accusative case (fatħa -
![Languages 10 00205 i001 Languages 10 00205 i001]()
) in place of their nominative case (
Alsager & Mahzari, 2021). Meanwhile, their predicates adopt the nominative case (
damma -
![Languages 10 00205 i002 Languages 10 00205 i002]()
). Among these particles,
ʔinna and
ʔanna played a crucial role in the development of
ʔinno, the focus of the current study, in spoken varieties such as JA.
ʔinna and
ʔanna are often classified as particles of emphasis, yet they differ both semantically and syntactically.
ʔinna typically conveys a higher degree of certainty and is used to assert or emphasize a statement. In contrast,
ʔanna functions primarily as a C introducing subordinate clauses, also known as complement phrases (CPs), and may not carry the same level of emphatic force. Syntactically,
ʔinna usually appears at the beginning of nominal sentences to emphasize a statement as seen in
Ɂinna al ħaja:ta saʕbatun ‘Indeed, life is hard’. In this initial position,
Ɂinna functions as an introductory particle that adds emphasis to the statement. However,
ʔanna usually occurs within a sentence, often following verbs of perception, speech, or cognition to link the main clause to its complement (
Ryding, 2005). In addition,
ʔinna can occasionally appear within a sentence, nevertheless, it continues to function as a particle of emphasis. Although it may appear in similar syntactic environments,
ʔanna consistently functions as a C, introducing a CP linked to the main clause (see Examples 1 and 2 below).
1. | qa:la Ɂinna alħaja:ta saʕbatun |
| ‘He said that life is hard’. |
2. | ðakara Ɂanna alħaja:ta saʕbatun |
| ‘He mentioned that life is hard’. |
Notably, the verb
qa:la ‘said’ is followed by
Ɂinna but not
Ɂanna in SA. In contrast, other reporting verbs such as
ðakara ‘mentioned’,
ʔaʕlana ‘declared’,
ʔakkada ‘asserted’, and
ʔaxbara ‘informed’, as well as verbs of perception like
samiʕa ‘heard’ and verbs expressing emotions like
ʔaħabba ‘liked’, are typically followed by
ʔanna but not
ʔinna (
Alsager & Mahzari, 2021;
Habib, 2009).
From the morphological perspective, if there is no overt subject in the CP, a pronoun suffix is attached to the particles
Ɂinna and
Ɂanna to indicate the person, gender, and number of the subject. To illustrate, the two examples could be
qa:la Ɂinna-
ha: saʕbatun ‘He said that it is hard’ and
ðakara Ɂanna-ha: saʕbatun ‘He mentioned that life is hard’, where
-ha: in the two examples refers to the third person, feminine and singular (3rd. F. SG) subject of the CP. Other pronoun suffixes include
Ɂinn/Ɂann-i: ‘that-I’ (1st. SG),
Ɂinn/Ɂann-a: ‘that-we’ (1st),
Ɂinna/Ɂanna-ka ‘that-you’ (2nd. M. SG),
Ɂinna/Ɂanna-ki ‘that-you’ (2nd. F. SG),
Ɂinna/
Ɂanna-kuma: ‘that-you’ (2nd. D),
Ɂinna/
Ɂanna-kum ‘that-you’ (2nd. M. Pl),
Ɂinna/
Ɂanna-
kunna ‘that-you’ (2nd. F. Pl),
Ɂinna/Ɂanna-hu ‘that-he’ (3rd. M. SG),
Ɂinna/Ɂanna-huma: ‘that-they’ (3rd. D),
Ɂinna/Ɂanna-hum ‘that-they’ (3rd. M. Pl),
Ɂinna/Ɂanna-hunna ‘that-they’ (3rd. F. Pl) (
Alsager & Mahzari, 2021).
Furthermore, the particle
Ɂan can be included in this group of particles as it also acts as a C like
Ɂanna in SA (
Habib, 2009, pp. 160–161). However,
Ɂan differs from the other particles in that it introduces verbal sentences and assigns a subjunctive mood to the following verbs. Unlike
Ɂinna and
Ɂanna,
Ɂan cannot be attached to pronoun suffixes to identify the person, gender, and number of the subject as it precedes verbs rather than nouns. Example 3 below presents
Ɂan within the following verbal sentence.
3. | Ɂaʕdʒabani: Ɂan taku:na dʒa:ri |
| ‘I liked that you are my neighbor’. |
Cowell (
1964) and
Germanos (
2010) stated that CPs introduced by Cs can serve a variety of syntactic functions such as subject, object, and predicate, among others. To illustrate, the CP
Ɂanna alħaja:ta saʕbatun ‘that life is hard’ in Example 2 above functions as an object of the main clause whereas the CP
Ɂan taku:na dʒa:ri ‘that you are my neighbor’ in Example 3 above functions as the subject of the sentence. This highlights the syntactic flexibility of CPs introduced by different Cs in SA.
Ɂinno is a colloquial expression in JA that operates as a C, similar to the grammatical particles
Ɂinna,
Ɂanna, and
Ɂan in SA in many aspects. While
Ɂinna in SA is not typically considered a complementizer but rather a particle of emphasis,
Ɂinno in JA frequently acts as a substitute for these SA particles, introducing CPs in various syntactic contexts. The following examples demonstrate how the three SA particles can be replaced by the C
Ɂinno in JA. Examples 4, 5, and 6 below illustrate the JA counterparts of 1, 2, and 3, featuring
Ɂinno.
4. | ga:l Ɂinno -ilħaja: saʕbi |
| ‘He said that life is hard’. |
5. | ħaka Ɂinno -ilħaja: saʕbi |
| ‘He mentioned that life is hard’. |
6. | ʕadʒabni Ɂinno tku:n dʒa:ri |
| ‘I like that you are my neighbor’. |
These examples show how the three SA particles can be replaced by the colloquial expression Ɂinno in JA at both the syntactic and semantic level. Syntactically, the CPs introduced by Ɂinno function as objects in Examples 4 and 5 and as the subject in Example 6 similar to the syntactic roles in Examples 1, 2, and 3. Semantically, the examples highlight that Ɂinno in JA conveys similar semantic meanings to its SA counterparts, enabling the expression to convey reported speech or assertion.
Building upon the discussion above, this study moves from analyzing Ɂinno solely as a C to examining its broader role as a DM in JA. This study aims to provide evidence that Ɂinno functions on two levels: the syntactic level (operating as a C), and the pragmatic level (operating as a DM) in JA. At the syntactic level, it attempts to demonstrate how Ɂinno introduces CPs serving various syntactic functions. At the pragmatic level, it explores how Ɂinno influences discourse structure and conveys speaker intentions within conversational contexts.