1

Verb Derivation
Verb Derivation
Derivational morphology through affixation is a productive method of forming
words in English. However, it is a challenge for English language learners (ELLs)
because of the lack of patterning that can be applied to all affixes. Briefly consider the
suffix [-ee], which when added to a verb indicates a person who does X, such as the verb
employ resulting in the derivative noun form employee. However, adding [-tion] to
employ does not produce the noun *employtion in English. This example implies a
complexity within the affix system in English and illustrates that there are restrictions
within affixation that should be addressed in pedagogy.
Considering the difficulties that occur with teaching affixes, this paper will
examine derivation through a sample of affixes that can be attached to form verbs from
other verbs and nouns. I will begin this discussion highlighting concerns with
transparency in derivational morphology and previous research in the field. Next, this
paper will address some of the main issues regarding affixes and the use of zero
derivation to create deverbal and denominal verbs. In addition, throughout this paper, I
will suggest pedagogical considerations for teaching ELLs.
Literature Review

There are many issues with transparency in derivational morphology. Morphemes

are considered idiomatic pieces of meaning and/or grammatical form, so that often the
meaning of a whole word is not predictable from the meaning of its parts. For example, if
a learner wishes to discern the meaning of the word impatiently in isolation, with no
prior knowledge of im, patient or ly, it would be difficult. Plag (2003) states that
words that lend themselves to transparency are words, whose meaning[s are] a function

Verb Derivation

of the meaning of its parts (p.21). However, many words are not so easily broken down
into pieces with transparent meanings. An example given by Plag (2003) is interview
(p.21). The prefix [inter-] is thought to mean between, however interview does not
mean between view. It means to question someone.
In a study by Bowers (2006) on the attempts to add transparency to opaque words,
his pedagogical recommendation is to encourage ELLs to notice patterns within words,
such as finding words that make use of the prefix [inter-] such as interdependent,
international, or interpersonal (p.9). Using these words, students can begin to notice
root words and some affixation patterns, such as the semantics of inter-, which implies
going between. The root it attaches to should have a quality that can allow interaction.
Although some of these words are opaque and others transparent, noticing when there are
affix patterns can help ELLs determine meaning.
Leiber (2004) states, All theories of morphology agree that there are
syntactical/categorical restrictions on affixation (p.155). However, Leiber (2004) goes
on to illustrate three other theories about affixation. Firstly, there is the theory that
restrictions on affix orderingare non-semantic in nature: morphemes are grouped into
blocks based on their phonological behavior, not on the basis of their meaning (p.156).
Secondly, affixes are semantically restricted (Leiber, 2004, p. 157). Lastly, Leiber
explains that there is a theory that suggests that affixes are purely morphological[ly
constrained]: there are no apparent phonological, syntactic, or semantic reasons why
more than one native affix might not attach to an appropriate base (p.157). With so many
theories about affixation in English, is it clear that patterns are hard to find, decipher,

Verb Derivation

explain, and teach. Yet, the productivity of affixation and the fact that it is how words are
form in English makes it necessary for ELLs to learn about.
In my experience, when teaching affixes and looking at a word such as
contribute, many students want to consider con a prefix. However, this word cannot
accurately be broken down further into con and tribute, or rather, the root word of
contribute is not tribute. This also illustrates what Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002)
found in their study of how much ELLs know about derivation. They stated that research
from Nagy, Diakidoy and Anderson (1993) and Tyler and Nagy (1990) showed that L1
(first language) derivations are acquired over a long time of exposure to affixation and
patterns and mainly through reading; therefore, not only is it a long process for L1
speakers, but it is an even longer, more arduous process for English L2 speakers (Schmitt
& Zimmerman, 2002).
In addition, according to Schmitt and Zimmermans (2002) study, which probed
the knowledge of word families of native speakers of English, ESL and MA-ELT
students, Verb derivations were the best known, with 67% produced; nouns were next at
63% (p.159). In other words, ELLs seem to be able to derive verbs and nouns more
frequently than adverbs and adjectives, yet still cannot produce nearly enough to fully
know a word and all its inflections and derivatives. To add to the difficulty of learning
affixes, Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002) found that even native speakers showed a great
deal of creativity and sometimes a lack of consensus on the correct derivatives,
indicating that while some affix patterns can be applied during the L2 learning process,
English affixation seems deceptively regular, but is in fact arbitrary (p.164). However,
Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002) also found that, Learners produced a surprisingly large

Verb Derivation
percentage of derivatives for target words they rated as fully unknown (p.160) This
clearly indicates that ELLs were drawing upon pattern knowledge of affixation to create
accurate derived words.
Due to the juxtaposition of set rules and arbitrariness in English affixation, it is
worth taking a look at some patterns that might be useful in helping ELLs recognize and

produce some verb derivations. Since Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002) identified verbs as
the most well known word class in terms of derivation, I will now focus on deverbal
verbs and denominal verbs.
Deverbal Verbs
Deverbal verbs are verbs that are derived from other verbs. In this case, there is
no change of part of speech, however the semantics are altered. According to Bauer
(1983), there are no English suffixes that can be added to verbs to create other verbs; he
attributes this to a lack of hypocoristic and intensifying suffixes in English in general
(p.223). In other words, suffixes do not tend to indicate euphemistic or intensification
when added to words, but typically change meaning in other ways or change parts of
speech. Zero derivation does not apply to this process either because the form and
function of a deverbal verb remains the same. However, prefixes can be affixed to verb
bases to produce other verbs such as do and redo.
Further examples of deverbal verb derivations which rely on the addition of
prefixes include: [un-], as in to reverse the process of something (example: tie versus
untie); [dis-] as in to do the opposite of something (example: inhibit versus
disinhibit); and [re-] as in to do something again (example: write versus rewrite).
It is important for ELLs to be aware that these prefixes cannot be attached to any verb to

Verb Derivation
create new words. For example, the prefix [un-] can be added to other word classes,
however when added to a verb it creates another verb with the meaning of reversing the
action of that verb. Consider again do: when [un-] is added, the verb undo is created.
However, derived verbs such as unplay or unexist are not prescriptive English. This
is because [un-] only attaches to verbs which have the characteristic of being able to be
reversed (e.g. undo, untie, unwrap, etc.) (Andrews, 1986, p. 226).

Since deverbal verb derivation can rely on the meaning of the verb and a meaning
of the prefix, it is important that ELLs are conscious of this restraint on the combinatory
potential. If a prefix has a specific meaning like [re-], it must combine with verbs that
allow for repetition, such as write. As a result, it could be useful for ELLs to be aware
of and study the definitions of common prefixes to have some idea of which verbs those
prefixes can combine with to make another verb.
Denominal Verbs
Another option within verb derivation is creating verbs from nouns. For this to
occur the addition of prefixes and suffixes can be combined with word bases or zero
derivation can be used. ELLs need to be aware of the affixes that combine with nouns to
make verbs and the limitations on those combinatory possibilities.
Although now unproductive, prefixes used in demoninal verb creation include
[be-] (in words such as befriend or bewitch) and [en-] (such as enslave) (Bauer,
1983, p. 217). When considering [be-], which means to make something become more X,
attaching it to a noun such as friend or witch is appropriate. However, this method of
derivation has become archaic. [En-], another unproductive prefix, can only attach to
locative words, or words that refer to a place (Gottfurcht, 2007, p.14). Consider entomb

Verb Derivation

(from the noun tomb), which means to put someone or something into a tomb, thereby
expressing the location. Because these two prefixes are unproductive in English, it may
not be useful to teach strategies for forming words with these prefixes because they are
limited and new derivations using them are not occurring. Rote memorization of words
drawing on these prefixes might be more beneficial for ELLs.
The list of suffixes used to create denominal verbs includes: [-ate], which means
to do a process that involves the noun. This particular derivation is esoteric in regards to
the sciences and usually refers to chemicals such as fluoride (which becomes to
fluorinate) (Plag, 2003, p.92). Most likely, this particular derivation is not important for
academic English purposes, but might benefit learners of English for special purposes (or
more technical English learners). The other three suffixes that derive verbs from nouns
include 1) [-en], meaning to make something X (example: strength becomes
strengthen). This suffix typically combines with monosyllabic words, which Plag
(2003) states, end in a [stop], fricative or affricate, so its combinatory potential is
limited phonologically. 2) Next is [-ify], meaning to become like X (example: beauty
becomes beautify). There is also, [-ize], which has a similar meaning to [-ify], or to
make or do something like X (example: America becomes Americanize). This last
suffix attaches mostly to base words that end with an unstressed syllable (Plag, 2003, p.
93-94). [-Ify] and [-ize] are currently productive suffixes in the English language and
ELLs could benefit from paying close to attention to the semantic implications of
combing these two suffixes with nouns.
Another way of deriving verbs from nouns is zero derivation. This is also a
productive method in English and frequently allows for the creation of new words

Verb Derivation

(Bauer, 1983, p.226). Some examples are the noun floor, which converts to the verb to
floor. This example of zero derivation can be considered metaphorical (to floor or to
surprise), however both forms of floor share overlapping semantics and imagery. Other
examples that can be considered include wire/to wire, skin/to skin, and
Google/to Google. Because this method of derivation is common in the English
language, it is something that ELLs should be aware of, but zero derivation cannot be
applied to all nouns. For example, to dictionary has not been accepted into the common
English lexicon and does not have any verbal connotations. (However, because zero
derivation is so productive in English, it may be that to dictionary does enter colloquial
English at some point. But currently, it is poor prescriptive English without standard
meaning.) Additionally, ELLs need to be aware of the morphological patterns that occur
when zero derivation is used to derive a verb from a noun. Figure 1 shows the difference
in stress for each word depending on which word class it belongs to:
Nouns:
Verbs:
Conflict
Conflict
Rebel
Rebel
Addict
Addict
Figure 1: Stress patterns in nouns vs. verbs. This figure shows how stress patterns affect
whether a word is a verb or noun.
In these examples, a pattern of stress on the first syllable indicates a noun; but stress on
the second syllable can indicate a derived verb form.
Because denominal verb derivation is still productive in English, the combinatory
potential for affixes and nouns to create verbs should be understood by ELLs. There are
numerous strategies including semantics, phonology and morphological patterns that can
guide ELLs to appropriate affix combinations and the use of zero derivation. Among
these strategies, Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002) recommend some ideas for teaching

Verb Derivation

affixes in their study. They suggest that when students are learning new words, derivative
forms should also be introduced for those words through inferencing; also instruction
students in affixes or word formation regularities [might help learners use] mnemonic
aid[s] for the component morphemes to use in new words; lastly, they suggest using
academic reading to provide exposure to affixation (p.164).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the use of affixes and zero derivation to derive verbs from other
verbs and nouns is a varied process that poses difficulties for second language learners of
English. Issues such as transparency, semantics, and phonology pose challenges for ELLs
when learning how to derive verbs; however, those same issues can also provide clues for
accurately combining affixes and/or using zero derivation. Productivity also plays a large
role in the derivation of verbs and therefore must be considered by both teachers and
ELLs when learning about combinatory potential and choosing which affixes should be
focused on during instruction. Finally, there are useful teaching and learning strategies
that can be applied in the classroom to help ELLs acquire knowledge about affixation, but
as has been illustrated, NNS of English are at a disadvantage when learning affixes
because of their seeming arbitrary nature. Thus, it is important that teachers and students
focus on tools that can guide learners to acquire affixation understanding and knowledge
and techniques that can help learners in situations where affix questions arise outside of
the classroom, as well.
References
Andrews, E. (1986). A synchronic semantic analysis of de- and un- in American English.
American Speech, 61 (3), 221-232.

Verb Derivation

Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bowers, P.N. (2006). Adding transparency to morphologically opaque words through
instruction. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Google Scholar.
Gottfurcht, C.A. (2007). Denominal verb formation in English. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest. (304816120)
Leiber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Nagy, W.E., Diakidoy, I.N. & Anderson, R.C. (1993). The acquisition of morphology:
Learning the contribution of suffixes to the meanings of derivatives. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 25, 155-170.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. & Zimmerman, C.B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know?
TESOL Quarterly, 36 (2) 145-171.
Tyler A. & Nagy, W. (1990). Use of derivations morphology during reading. Cognition,
36, 17-34.