SYNTAX AND DISTRIBUTION OF NEGATION MARKERS IN OLD ENGLISH BIBLICAL TRANSLATION: A HISTORICAL CORPUS STUDY

Authors

  • Sharoona Noreen MPhil Research Scholar, Minhaj University, Lahore, Pakistan. Author
  • Laiba Zaheer MPhil Research Scholar, Minhaj University, Lahore, Pakistan. Author
  • Hassan Khan Lecturer, Lahore Garrison University, Lahore, Pakistan. Author

Keywords:

Bound morpheme, Free morpheme, Low Scope Negative (LSN) Markers, Morphosyntax, New International Version (NIV), Scripture, Wide Scope Negative (WSN) Markers

Abstract

In the present research study, the negations words syntax and morphology of the Bible English language has been analyzed. In this specific study, the focus is the New Testament Scriptures, specifically the four gospels of the New Testament, that have been analyzed using the Bible's New International Version. This research aims to enrich the knowledge of the use of negation words in biblical texts interpretation. Negation markers cannot simply be seen as a homogeneous group – there are degrees of scope in which they affect the language units. Such kinds of negation markers include Low Scope Negative and Wide Scope Negative markers. LSN markers are bound morphemes like prefixes de-, dis-, un-, iN-, non- and suffixes -less. Studies on the LSN markers have predominantly been concerned with their semantics and particularly their opposition of contradiction and contrariety, productivity and their interaction with linguistic categories. The latter differs from the former as WSN markers (like not) are free morphemes, which are analysed syntactically. It is a very clear distinction: "LSN markers are studied morphologically, while WSN markers are studied syntactically. Obviously, there are good arguments for talking about negative markers in a common framework. Firstly, it may be assumed that the WSN markers are bound morphemes and thus can make it difficult to distinguish between bound morphemes and free morphemes. Secondly, categories such as suppletion and allomorphy, which were thought to be typical of LSN markers are also typical of WSN markers. Thirdly, independent negative markers, such as Dutch "weinig," have stacking properties.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adger, D., & Trousdale, G. (2007). Variation in English syntax: Theoretical implications. English Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002250

Andrew Carnie. (2010). Constituent structure (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Bhatti, Z. I. (2021). A Corpus Based Analysis of Discourse Markers in Pakistani and American English. IJICC, 15(4).

Bhatti, Z. I. (2021). Towards Pragmatic Integration of Linguistics with Islamic Studies. Harf-o-Sukhan, 5(2).

Bhatti, Z. I. (2024). Morphological Processes of English Neologisms in Instagram and Facebook. Migration Letters, S12, 63–76.

Committee on Bible Translation. (2011). A note from the Committee on Bible Translation. In Holy Bible: New International Version. Biblica.

De Clercq, K. (2022). The morphosyntax of negative markers: A nano syntactic account. Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding morphology (2nd ed.). Hodder Education.

Katamba, F. (1993). Morphology. Macmillan Press.

Nida, E. A., & Taber, C. R. (2003). The theory and practice of translation. Brill. (Original work published 1969)

Noam Chomsky. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.

Rodney Huddleston, & Geoffrey K. Pullum. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.

Štrmelj, L. (2017). On syntactic and morphological negation in biblical English: A diachronic study. Jezikoslovlje, 18(1), 145–157. https://hrcak.srce.hr/187155

Published

2026-03-31

How to Cite

Sharoona Noreen, Laiba Zaheer, & Hassan Khan. (2026). SYNTAX AND DISTRIBUTION OF NEGATION MARKERS IN OLD ENGLISH BIBLICAL TRANSLATION: A HISTORICAL CORPUS STUDY. International Premier Journal of Languages & Literature, 4(3 (s3), 785-806. https://ipjll.com/ipjll/index.php/journal/article/view/739