Abstract:

This study compares the affixation processes involved in English and Hausa language word
formation systems, with the aim of identifying areas of differences and similarities for pedagogic
implications. The study adopted two theories; “Construction morphology” and “Contrastive
Analysis”. In “construction morphology” complex words of a language are analyzed as
constructions, that is systematic pairings of form and meaning. Words are believed to be built
from morphemes either by rules or by constructional schemata and the meanings of complex
words are culminations of the meanings of the components of words. While “Contrastive
Analysis” deals with differences and similarities between the two languages and hypothesized
that similarities between the two languages would facilitate learning (positive transfer’), but
differences would due to ‘negative transfer’ (or ‘interference’). The study compares and
discusses affixation processes; prefixes, infixes and suffixes in both languages using the
descriptive analysis method. The analysis was based on standard dialect of both languages.
From the data analyzed, it was discovered that in both languages there are significant areas of
differences and similarities; similarities aids learning while some of the differences interferes
significantly in learning of English as a second language by the Hausa speakers of English
language. This research work can be used as a source of information or rather reference
material to curriculum planners/designers and reviewers as well as teachers. This is significant
in second language teaching and learning as it implies that teachers of English as a second
language could use these areas of contrasts and similarities as effective teaching devices to
teach and correct interference errors among Hausa learners of English.

1
1. Introduction
The major task of a linguist is to describe the properties of a language. This kind of description is
generally referred to as the grammar of the language. Although there are some considerable
disagreements within linguistics concerning the precise form of a grammar, it is believed that
each grammar of a language has the following properties; phonetic property, phonological
property, syntactic property, semantic property and lexical or morphological property. The study
of how languages are differently structured began out of the interest to classify language families
across the world. This was initiated by historical or comparative linguist whose efforts were
geared towards identifying areas of similarities and differences with a view to identifying the
ancestral origin of such languages under study. According to Al-Hassan (1998), comparative
linguistic approaches apply to all levels of linguistic analysis which include phonology,
morphology, syntax and semantics. Among these levels of analysis, morphology is level
accorded lesser attention in comparative linguistics. This research work sets out to study the
similarities and differences of affixation processes of two genetically unrelated languages namely
(English and Hausa). Genetically, the English and Hausa languages belong to different phyla.
English is a
European language in the Indo-European sub-division, whereas Hausa according to Greenberg
(1966) is a member of Chadic branch of the Afro-Asiatic phylum. Generally speaking,
irrespective of the genetic un-relatedness of two languages, the languages have certain
similarities. The morphological features these languages may share in common may not
necessarily be indicative of their genetic or historical relationship but a relationship of universal
dimension. It is obvious that universal features or similarities and differences among languages
can be discovered with exactitude through comparative/contrastive studies.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Languages of the world have their own affixation or morphological processes and the rules
governing them, likewise English and Hausa. The Hausa language differs from the English
language in affixation processes. This could therefore lead to a linguistic situation of inter-
lingual errors emanating from mother tongue interference on the target language. Areas of
commonalities could aid learning as proposed in contrastive analysis while areas of differences
could inhibit L2 learning. This study seeks to uncover how linguistic elements like affixes, signal
grammatical relationship when indicating number, gender or tense marking in the Hausa and

2
English language, and how it is used to derive words in such languages through the use of
derivational affixes. Despite the fact that scholarly works have been done on the morphological
processes of the English language and other languages, much have not been done on the
comparative study between English and Hausa word formation processes of affixation and its
implications to language learning. This work aims at filling this gap by comparing the
morphological processes of affixation in English and Hausa language with the aim of revealing
the cross-linguistic differences and similarities as well as predicting the pedagogical implications
it has in learning the target language which is the English Language.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
This study will be guided by the following objectives
i. To examine the similarities between English and Hausa language morphological
processes of affixation.
ii. To examine the differences that exists between English and Hausa language
morphological processes of affixation.
iii. To determine how the similarities in the affixation processes affect the learning of the
English language by the Hausa speaker.
iv. To determine how the differences in the affixation processes influence the learning of the
English Language by the Hausa speaker.
v. To also examine the pedagogical implications of these cross-linguistic differences
between Hausa and English morphological processes to the teaching and learning of the English
Language affixation
1.3 Explanation of Key Words and Phrases
Morphology as an aspect of linguistic analysis has a lot of definitions from various scholars.
Yule (2010) defined Morphology as the study of basic form of language. Tomori (1999) also
defined morphology as the study of the structure of word. This implies that morphology as a field
of linguistics sets out to study the rules governing the formation of words in a language and the
internal structure of words. In my view, given various definitions earlier stated Tomori’s
definition seeks to capture the essence of this research work, because it covers the structure of
words, the formation of word and the rules governing such formations.

3
1.3.1 Word, Morphemes and Classification of Morphemes
Word: a word is the basic unit of language. Languages have some elements ranging from the
words to discourses. A word is the basic element upon which discourse is built. Carstairs (2002)
stated that words as meaningful building blocks of language. This implies that words are
meaningful linguistic forms which combines together to form a larger complex meaning. Plag
(2003) posits that words are composed by putting together smaller elements to form larger words
with more complex meaning can be referred to as morphologically complex words.
Morphemes: they are smallest meaningful unit of morphology which contribute in shaping of
words. Morpheme can be classified into free morpheme and bound morpheme. Grady and
Guzman (1996) was the view that, a morpheme that can stand on its own is called free
morpheme while a morpheme that must be attached to another element is a bound morpheme.”
Bound morpheme must be joined with another morphemes as part of words and can never stand
alone. For instance: prefixes “en” + large = enlarge. Root: root is the morpheme which carries
the core meaning. In the word “faithfulness” for instance, the core of the word or root morpheme
is faith. The root of the word is that part that is always present.
Stem: it is that part of a word that exist before any inflectional affixes (Katamba1993). For
instance, in the word “driver” before inflection of “s” is a stem.
Base: “a base is any unit whatsoever to which affixes of any kind can be added” (Katamba,
1993: 45). For instance, in the word ‘Disagreement’, the root is “agree” and at the same time the
base. We can conclude that all roots are base but roots are stems when they take inflectional
suffixes. Although all roots are bases, not all roots are stems.
language does not exhibit inflectional suffixation, rather inflections are actualizing by prefixing
morphemes to forms; ‘Enekele - Man’ ‘Ab ’ekele – men’ ‘Akpiti-ant’ Am ’kpiti –ants’ ‘Ewo –
goat Am ’ewo – goats’ ‘imoto – youth Ab’ imoto- infants’ etc.
2. Empirical Studies
Abubakre (2008) studied morphological processes of affixation in Hausa and Eggon language
with a view of describing and analyzing the differences and similarities in the cross-linguistic
morphological realization in the two languages. He chose two genetically different languages to
justify the fact that some of the universal properties of natural language do vary from language to

4
language irrespective of their genetic relationship. Hausa, being a member of Chadic sub-group
of Afro-Asiatic language family while Eggon being classified as a Benue-Congo language
family. The findings of the study had revealed among other things that affixation in Hausa and
Eggon, whether derivational or inflectional perform a productive role in the lexicons of the
languages. David (1985) carried out a study on contrastive analysis of Tiv and English
morphological processes. He examined the inflectional patterns evident in Tiv and contrasted it
with English language with a view to detecting their similarities and differences. The research
findings revealed cross linguistic differences in the morphemic distribution of the languages are
likely to influence teaching and learning of English by the native speaker of Tiv language. It also
revealed that there is set of Tiv morpheme that marks gender and tense which also obtains in the
English language. Affixes in Tiv language are only placed at the level of suffixation and
infixation. Andrew (2006) conducted a study on a comparative analysis of English and Igala
morphological process. The findings of his research revealed that Igala and the English language
share some universal morphological properties. It also revealed that there are areas of differences
in the type of morphological processes applicable in both languages
e.g.
2.1 Inflectional suffixes
English: fight, fights, fighting, fought
Igala: J, Ja, Ja, Ja
English makes use of inflections and vowel to express grammatical notions of tense in its verbal
class while Igala actualizes tense marking by attaching the tense morphological marker on lexical
items or pre-verbal elements to express tense. Therefore, it can say that Igala verbs are not
morphosyntactic and does not mostly show morphemic variations and syntactic function with
regards to the indication of tense, case, and number (Andrew 2006) e.g.
2.2 Affixation in English
Affixation, according to crystal (1980) can be defined as a morphological process whereby
grammatical or lexical information is added to a stem. This work adopts crystal’s definition
based on the fact that it is more explicit than others, since it covers a wider linguistic range. In
summary we can say that affixation is a process in which a new additive is added to an operand
(root) to create new word. Processes of affixation in English as Mathews (1991) and Agezi
(2004) posits it, may be classified into prefixes, suffixes and infixes processes, depending on

5
whether the affix is added before the base, after it or at some determined point within it. The
primary function of prefix in English is to change the meaning of the base to which it is added.
Suffixes are attached to the end of free morphemes; thus they are bound morphemes attached to
the end of the bases. In English, suffixes frequently alter the word-class of the base. Haspelmath
(2002) practically demonstrates that inflectional suffixes are of two types: derivational and
inflectional suffixes. In English, suffixation is primarily class – changing, that is suffixes
generally alter the word– class of the base. (Thakur, 1997:26)
The last form of affixation is in-fixation, which has to do with insertion between the root (word)
or operant. Usually a morpheme is inserted in between the root or base for in-fixation. Thus, it is
a process where an affix interrupts the root. The process of infixation, according to Crystal
(1980) does not occur in European languages which English is one of them; but can be
commonly found among Asian, American, Indian and African languages.
Affixation in Hausa is called “dafi”, that is a process whereby a morpheme is added to the root to
add meaning to it or to give it another meaning. The affix which is attached to the initial word or
position is called “dafagoshi” (prefixation) while the one attached at the final position of the
word is called “dafa – keya” (suffixation). The one which is attached at the middle of the root
word is called “Dafa – ciki” (infixation). The processes of affixation in Hausa involves
prefixation (dafa – goshi), suffixation (dafa – keya) and infixation (dafa – ciki).

2.3 Prefixation (Daafa – Goshi) in Hausa

According to Abdullhamid (2000) prefix in Hausa make use of derivational morpheme as
prefixes that are used in patronymics or ethnonyms. This involves the processes of affixation
where a morpheme (known as Kwayar tasarifi) in Hausa comes before the root word. There are
four prefixes in Hausa that are illustrated here: They are “–ba,” – “ma,” “mai,” and “maras”,
Examples (1) BA as a prefix in Hausa has the idea of “man of” e.g, Ba-hagu (Bahago) = left-
handed, Baturai (Baturee) =European etc.
Example (2) Ma-as a prefix in Hausa has idea of “doer of”, eg. Ma-harbi (maharbi) =shooter as
in hunting, Ma-taimako=help (mataimaki) =helper
Example (3) Mai indicates profession), Mai-dinki = suit (maidinki) =tailor. (4) “Maras”
indicates lack of or less e.g Maras-kunya = shy (maraskunya) = shyless

6
2.4 Suffixation (Dafa – Keya) in Hausa According to Abdullhamid (2000), suffixation plays a
major role in Hausa morphology and has the largest number of inflectional as well as
derivational morphemes compared to pre-fixation and in-fixation. This kind of morpheme
(kwayar tasarifi) allows the root to appear before it. These suffixes include –nta, - kai, - ta – wa, -
ku etc. Abdullhamid (2000) gave examples of Hausa language suffixation as follows:
Operand +Suffixes Derived Gloss
Bako (guest) + nta Bakunta Being guest
Gona (farm) + kai Gonakai Farms
Dangi (family) + ntaka Dangantaka Relationship
Sabo (new) + untaka Sabuntaka Newness
Taburma (mat) + mai Taburmai Mats

2.5 Infixation (Dafa – Ciki) in Hausa

The morpheme that is inserted within the root is referred to as an infix. Fagge (2004:7) posits
that; “when a morpheme comes between elements of the root is called an infix”. Examples of
in-fixation can be seen in Hausa language, but they are not common in English language
because English does not have true infixation. Although the native Hausa speakers uses the
term infixes in Hausa. The following pairs of words show how infixes are used in Hausa
language. There are types of vocalic morpheme which appear in the middle of words. These
include – a -, - e -, and – i -. The first short vowels “- a-” and “-e-” are inflectional vowels
while “-i-” is derivational vowel. Abdullhamid (2000) gave the following examples as:
Operand + suffixes Derived Gloss
Gurgu -aa - Guraagu Lame
Murhu -aa- Maraahu Local stoves
Kurma -a- Kurame Deaf
Baawaa -i- Baiwa Slave
Doki -wa- Dawaki Horses

2.6 Theoretical framework

7
Theoretical framework for comparative study presents a number of different perspectives. This
study adopts two theories that are relevant to this study: Construction morphology and
Contrastive Analysis.
2.6.1 Construction Morphology
Construction Morphology (CM) is a morphological theory developed by Geert Booji in (2000s).
Masini (2012) says: “The label Construction Morphology however, appears for the first time in
Booji (2005).” The key publication on CM is Baoji’s 2010 book tagged “Construction
Morphology”. Masini (2012:1) opined that CM can be viewed as a theory that deals with
morphological constructions within the larger framework of Construction Grammar (CG). In
construction morphology, complex words are seen as constructions on the word level. The notion
‘construction’ which connotes a pairing of form and meaning as developed in the theory of
Construction Grammar is essential for an insightful account of the properties of complex words.
Morphological patterns can be represented as constructional schemas that express generalizations
about sets of existing complex words and word forms, and provide the recipes for coining new
(forms of) words, (Booji 2017). Construction Morphology is a theory of word structure in which
the complex words of a language are analyzed as constructions, that is, systematic pairings of
form and meaning. Words are believed to be built from morphemes either by rules or by
constructional schemata (Boojij, 2010) and the meanings of complex words are culminations of
the meanings of the components of words. Morphological schemas therefore have two functions:
they express predictable properties of existing complex words and indicate how new ones can be
coined (Jackendoff 1975).
2.6.2. Contrastive Analysis
The term “contrastive linguistics” was first coined by Whorf (1941) for comparative study.
Contrastive linguistics has been perceived as a sub-discipline of linguistics concerned with the
comparison of two or more languages or sub-system of languages in order to determine both the
differences and similarities between them” (Fisiak, 1986:18). The publication of Robert Lado’s
book “linguistics across culture” in 1957 initiated a comparative linguistic study. Contrastive
analysis is the method of analyzing the structure of any two languages with a view to identifying
the different aspects of their systems, irrespective of their genetic affinity or level of
development. It is assumed that learning a second language is facilitated whenever there are
similarities between that language and the mother tongue. Learning may be interfered with when

8
there are marked differences or contrast between mother tongue and second language (Nickel,
1971:26). The researcher adopts the two previously mentioned theories “construction
morphology” and “Contrastive Analysis” because construction morphology provides theoretical
platform for analyzing affixes as a morphological construction where complex words are seen as
constructions on the word level. The notion of ‘construction’, as a pairing of form and meaning,
as developed in the theory of Construction Grammar is essential for an insightful account of the
properties of complex words in both languages. It will provide the theoretical foundation of
unravelling how the differences in the affixation processes of the two languages occasion
differences in meaning. The relevant of contrastive linguistics to this research work is that, it
serves as a veritable tool for contrasting linguistic differences between two languages with a
view to predicting inter-lingual errors arising from cross-linguistic differences.
3. Research Methodology
This study adopts a descriptive design approach it is aimed at undertaking a comparative study
between English and Hausa word formation processes (affixation). Descriptive study is suitable
for this study in that it aims at intuitive observations of area of cross-linguistic differences and
similarities between the two languages while also making generalization on its implications to
the learning of the target language (English). The data for this study were obtained from various
sources, which include primary and secondary sources. Furthermore, the native informants
known as “kanawa” (kano people) who are the standard dialect speakers used in this study were
contacted in order to affirm or discard a point of argument on this study. The data collected were
organized in tables describing the nature and type of data collected.
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULT
4.1 Areas of similarities between the affixation processes of the English and the Hausa
language English and Hausa language are similar in the word formation process of pre-fixation.
In the two languages (English and Hausa) prefixes are used before the root for derivational
morpheme making negation. For examples:
OPERAND PREFIXES DERIVED FORM GLOSS
(English and Hausa) (English and (English and Hausa)
Hausa )
Educated -un Uneducated
MarasIlimai

9
Mai Iliimi (Educated) -maras Uneducated
Clever -un Unclever
Wayo (cleverness ) Maras Maraswayo Unclever
Based on the table above both English and Hausa have English and “maras” for Hausa. In this
regard, both derivative before the operand (base) known as prefix English and Hausa are similar
in pre-fixation process as which is used to indicate negation, or reverse as “un” for both
languages use the above prefixes to indicate negation as part of word formation in their
respective marking. That is to say both English and Hausa have languages. Similar process of
inflectional suffixes. The table below Secondly, both languages have similar suffixation indicates
these inflectional suffixes which marks process especially for inflectional purposes. This is
singularity and plurality in the both languages, because they share some similar suffixation in
number.

OPERAND SUFFIX DERIVED FORM GLOSS

(English and Hausa) (English and (English and Hausa)
Hausa)
Boy -s Boys Plural
Battery -ies Batteries Plural
Hula (Cap) -Una Huluna Caps (plural )

4.2 Areas of differences between the affixation processes of the English language and
the Hausa language
Despite their similarities, differences exist within the two languages (English and Hausa). Firstly,
the major differences observed between English and Hausa are in the pre-fixational classification
of the English language. This can be seen from the examples that English language uses different
classification of prefixes which Quirk et al (1973: 442) identified as:
I. pejorative prefixes
This prefix expresses contempt. In English, there are two prefixes of this kind (Mis+) and
(Mal+) as in: Mis + calculate = miscalculate
Mal + administration = maladministration

10
In Hausa, you cannot find these pejorative prefixes. Hausa language usages free morpheme such
as “kuskure” which refers to (Mis) in order to make such expression.

II. Prefixes of degree or size

This kind of prefixes in English indicate grade, size, or extent of something such as super, under
and out as in: Super + structure = superstructure, under + weight = underweight, Out + growt =
outgrow. These groups of prefixes are not found in Hausa. Hausa indicates grade or size by using
root word such as “sosai” e.g. “girma sosai” (outgrow).
III. Prefixes of attitude

These prefixes indicate the behavior of something or somebody towards another; such as anti,
counter and co as in: Anti + criminal = anti criminal, Anti+= anti-corruption, Counter + balance
= counterbalance, Co + exist = coexist. Prefixes of attitude do not exist in Hausa. In contrast
Hausa uses word such as “masuyaki” (Anti) toward an attitude e.g “masuyaki da cinhanki”
(anticorruption).
IV. Locative prefixes: indicates the actual setting or position, or mixture of something such as:
Trans + form = transform, Trans + figure = transfigure, Inter + link = interlink, etc. This kind
of prefix cannot be found in Hausa also. To indicate actual setting or position Hausa uses
word like “ingantawa” (transform).
V. Prefixes of time and order can be found in English but not Hausa. They are used to indicate
time such as: pre, post, and re, as in: Pre + caution = precaution, Post + date = postdate, Re +
decoration = redecoration. Hausa uses words not affixes to indicate time and order as in
“pre-” (Kafin), “post-” (Bayan) and Re (kara). Examples, Preprimary (Kafin primary), etc.
Number prefixes are used in English to indicate quantity such as di, bi, mono, uni, and tri as in:
di + syllabic = disyllabic, bi + lingual = bilingual, uni + lateral = unilateral, tri + color = tricolor .
Hausa language in the other hand uses root word such as “Di” (Daya), “Bi” (Biyu), “Tri” (Uku).
Hausa language on the other hand exhibits only four prefixes: ba, ma, mai and Maras. Three
out of these prefixes excluding “maras” makes Hausa language different from English language
in terms of the prefix which marks ownership of particular language or one being a native of
particular geographical area. Hausa uses prefix like “ba” as in (Bahaushe) Hausa man,

11
(Bafaranshe) French man, or someone whose mother tongue is French and also “ma” as in
(Makadi) a drummer. Hausa language has these kinds of prefixes which do not exist in English
language. Secondly, Hausa language differs from English in term of suffixes which indicate
gender. Hausa mark gender variation through the use of suffixes like –inya and even vowel
alternation which are all used to indicate gender distinction as in:
OPERAND GLOSS SUFFIX DERIVED GLOSS
Yaro Boy -inya Yarinya Girl
Malami Male teacher -a Malama Female teacher
Jaki Donkey (male) -a Jaka Donkey (female)
Thirdly, Hausa can insert additional morph or affixes at some determined point within the operand to indicate
plurality as in:
OPERAND GLOSS SUFFIX DERIVED GLOSS
Gurgu Lame -a Guragu Lames
Murhu Stove -a Murahu Stoves

The table above shows the phenomenon known as “infixes”. Although English can indicate plurality by using
inflection, it does not allow the insertion of an element within the operand when indicating number.
4.3 The extent to which the similarities in the morphological processes facilitates L2 competence of the
Hausa-English speakers
There are linguistic assumptions that linguistic similarities could facilitate language learning. Where two
languages are similar there is bound to be positive transfer of linguistic features of the L1 in to the L2, with
respect to (English and Hausa) prefixation and suffixation processes the two languages share similar
processes. For example:
OPERAND PREFIXES/SUFFIXES DERIVED GLOSS
(English and Hausa )
Clever Un Unclever
Wayo (cleverness ) Maras Maraswayo Unclever

Civilize UN Uncivilized
Wayewa Maras Maraswayewa Uncivilized

12
5. The extent to which the differences in the morphological processes of affixation affect L2
competence of the Hausa-English speakers
Linguistic differences of Hausa and English language with regard to comparative affixes result
negative transfer from Hausa language to the English language in the areas of comparative
marking system. English language make use of comparative suffixes e.g “er” and “est”, which do
not occur in Hausa language. Hausa on the other hand uses prefix “mafi” to indicate comparative
marking system.
5.1 pedagogical implications of cross-linguistic differences in the affixation processes of
Hausa and English language teaching
Cross linguistic differences usually have pedagogical implications in the learning of target
language. These differences usually trigger inter-lingual errors. With regard to English language
teaching, English and Hausa both employed the use of affixation (prefixes) to form new words
but Hausa has different affixational rule. This implies the possibility of L1 rule overlap in to the
L2 (English) language. Hausa language has prefix
“maras” which means (lack of or less) while English language has prefixes such as “IL” and “IR”
which has the idea of (lack of or less). In Hausa language the prefix “maras” when attached to
the root word such as “sauri” (Hurry) to form “marassauri” (unhurried), Hausa speakers
pronounce all the letters regardless of the occurrences of the same letters that appears in the word
formation of the derived form. e.g. “Maras-sauri” (unhurried). In contrast to the Hausa language,
some English prefixes such as “IL” and “IR”, when attached to the root word to form another
words such as,
“Irrelevant” and “Illiterate”, the first letters “L & R” are assimilated into the other thereby
pronouncing the second one only. Here, Hausa speakers L1 affixational rule interfere in the
learning of English language, resulting in the transfer of the (Hausa) L1 rule in the phonological
realization of the English derived words; “illiterate” and “irrelevant” as “Il-literate” and
“Irrelevant” as he does with the Hausa language.

13
6. Conclusion
This research work affirms that English and Hausa language have their own peculiarities, but
with some common features. Therefore, for Hausa learners of English to be effective in the
knowledge of English affixation processes (word formation) he or she should be grounded in the
morphology of the target language which to some aspects differs from his or her own Hausa
language

14
REFERENCES
Abubakre, O. (2008). Affixation in Hausa and Eggon: a comparative analysis. EDE Journal of
Linguistics.77-93.
Abdulhamid, A. (2000). An introductory Hausa morphology: Maiduguri. Faculty of Arts,
University of Maiduguri.
Ali, A. (1996). Fundamental of research in education.
Anambra State: Marks Publishers.
Al-Hassan, B. (1998). Reduplication in Chadic languages. New York: Peter Lang.
Andrew, C (2006). A comparative analysis of English and Igala morphological processes. M. A.
Thesis, Department of English and Literary Studies, Faculty of Arts, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria Print.
Booij, G. (2000). Construction morphology: journal compilation. Blackwell Publishers.
Crystal, D. (1980). A Dictionary of linguistic and phonetics. New York: Andre Deutsch.
Fagge, U. (2004). Introduction to Hausa morphology. Kano: Gidan Dabino Publishers Print.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. (1998). An Introduction to Language. New York: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers Print.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Linguistic evidence for the influence of Kanuri on Hausa: Journal of
African History.
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding morphology: New York, Oxford University press Inc.
Masini, F. (2012). Construction morphology: A thumbnail sketch, University of Bologna
Stanford University.
Marshland, H. (1969). The Categories of types of present day English word
formation. Mumchi: Beck.

15
Matthews, P. H. (1991). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nwargu, B. (2006). Educational research: basic issues and methodology. Ibadan: Wisdom
Publishers Limited Print.
Quirk, R. et al. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Rubba, J. (2004). An overview of the English morphological system: English Department
(Linguistics), California Polytechnic, State University Print.
Rufa,’I. A. (1979). Principal resources of lexeme formation in Hausa. Kano: Bayero University
Tomori, O.S. H. (1999). The morphology and syntax of present day English:
an introduction. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd, Print.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language. Cambridge: Cup, Print.

16