 Derivation is a morphological process that creates new words by means of concatenative as well as non-concatenative operations. The following distinctions can be drawn in present-day English and these distinctions determine our program. First of all, we will look at concatenative operations in particular at affixation. Then we will focus on conversion before in the end we will briefly look at other types of derivation. Let's start with affixation which is the most common morphological operation of forming words in present-day English. Affixes in present-day English can be grouped in various ways. First of all, they can be grouped according to their position within a word. So for example, we have prefixes. I'm using orthography here for reasons of simplification or we may have suffixes. On the other hand, we can group affixes concerning their meaning. Let's look at negative affixes as an example. For example, we can have something like unhappy. Other realizations of negative prefixes are things like impossible. Well, and you might want to group things like non-syntactic here as well. So here is the break. So in other words, we have three different types of negative prefixes. And we can group affixes concerning their phonological contribution. That is they may evoke stress change, vocalic changes or both. Let's look at some examples. In something like a generation, we can observe a stress shift from generate to generation. Or we may observe something like a vocalic change in national. We have a vocalic change where the original a in nation changes to a in national. Well, in some cases we even may have both. For example, in destruction, we have on the one hand a change from oi in destroy to destruction to a. And at the same time, we have the insertion of a ker destroy with nothing and ker distract. And so here we have destroy destruction in fact two changes at the same time. Let's now look at prefixes in particular. Over here you find a set of prefixes and they have one thing in common. They normally do not inflict phonological changes. So they're stress neutral. In cases like unusual, you have usual, unusual, no stress change. In cases like this, allow, you have allow and disallow. So really they're stress neutral. They're phonologically not really relevant. On the other hand, some of these prefixes may be syntactically relevant. For example, in be which or in enable, you can observe a change from a noun which to a verb. So here be which be which turns the noun into a verb. And in enable, we have a change from an adjective to a verb. So en turns the adjective able into a verb. So some of these prefixes are syntactically relevant. Let's look at suffixes. Here the situation is different. The most common means of deriving new words in English makes use of suffixes. In English, derivational suffixes can be subdivided in several ways. On the one hand, we can again look at their phonological behavior. There are suffixes that inflict phonological changes. Look at something like, and now I'm using phonetic transcription, produce versus production, produce, production. Now here we have a change from u to ak. So a vocaliq plus a continental change. On the other hand, we have suffixes that are phonologically neutral. Examples would be something like help or sorry, helpful. So here we have the stress in each case on the first syllable. Help and helpful is there's no change. Other examples would be something like punish and punishment where nothing happens to the base form in terms of any phonological change. The word class that suffixes incorporate however is very interesting in this case. For example, we have nominal affixes like meant. So whenever you add something like meant to a base form in punish, for example, you will get punishment and you will have a change from verb to noun. Then we have verbal affixes, affixes that turn their base into verbs. For example, if we take i's, then a noun like standard can be turned into a verb. So here we have the noun standard and the resulting new derivative is a verb. The third group are adjectival affixes. For example, herbal in move and herbal which becomes movable and here we have a change from verb to adjective. Other examples would be something like top which is a noun and if you add less an adjectival affix it becomes topless. Well, here is the third group, infixes and circumfixes in present day English. Well, there is general agreement among morphologists that English has neither infixes nor circumfixes. However, in examples of expressive language so-called expletives that is words with a clearly recognizable negative attitude may be inserted as infixes. Let's take two base forms. For example, kanga and I deliberately leave a space here, kangaroo or let's take another example in possible. Now, these are clearly base forms. Now, if I take one of these nasty words like bloody or the famous effing word, I could in expressive language insert them into these gaps which would produce something like kangaroo, bloody, and if you want to hear it or not, in fucking possible. Yet this process is restricted by a suprasegmental phonological constraint. The expletive material must be inserted between two feet. That is a unit consisting of either one stressed syllable and one or more unstressed syllables. So kangaroo and impossible are pos, are the stressed syllables. Now, here's another variant of derivation conversion. This is a very common non-concatenative operation of enriching the English vocabulary. Let us take the word must as an example. Now, must is normally an auxiliary verb, a modal to be precise, and it can be converted into a noun. An example would be something like you must attend classes regularly, which would be an auxiliary verb, and class attendance is a must. Here we have a noun. Now, conversion raises three major problems. First of all, the problem of directionality. The question is, how can we decide whether it is the auxiliary verb that is derived from the noun or vice versa? Well, here in the case of must, it is pretty clear because the frequency of occurrence will tell us the true story. Another case concerns the question of affixation again. Couldn't we define conversion as a zero affixation? Well, the element zero is not uncommon in linguistics. In phonology, we have zero elements. In syntax, we have zero elements. So this is not something completely uncommon. And if we did, we could reduce different morphological operations to just one central concatenative operations affixation. Well, this could be a possibility. I'm not giving you the solution here. And then we have the problem of crossing linguistic boundaries. Now, it is very difficult sometimes to decide why certain conversion processes are possible. Take the example winter and to winter. So the conversion from noun to verb, which is clearly possible. But what about summer and to summer? Well, here we run into trouble. Now, without reference to syntax or semantics, that is, to higher levels, we have no chance to take the final decision. So let's summarize then. We have two central operations in present-day English that allow us to derive new words. On the one hand, we have concatenation or affixation, where we primarily use prefixes or suffixes. Even though infixes are possible, we can ignore them by enlarge and dedicate them to special cases. Conversion is the second big morphological process of derivation. Now, whether it's zero affixation or not was not solved in this unit. And then we have other processes that expand the English vocabulary by means of recycling existing words. So we have something like brunch, for example, which is a combination of breakfast and lunch. And here, of course, we have a combination of two base forms. And this example is called a blend. There are more examples of this type, but they have not been considered here.