Just to second Kathleen's note. What I've read on morphology does consider functional shift to be a morphological change and records this by calling such changes as zero affix, which accounts for the fact that, e.g., in irregular noun plurals there is no -s, or derivational affix attached.
 
John, if it's of interest, I can send a short lesson on morphology created by a Ph.D. in linguistics that will help address this.
 
Natalie Gerber
SUNY Fredonia

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Kathleen M. Ward
Sent: Thu 5/29/2008 11:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Morphology


My speciality is certainly not morphology, but all the books I've read call this kind of "derivation without change in form" a morphological change that is variously called "conversion," "functional shift," or "zero-morph derivation.  

Kathleen M. Ward
UC Davis

On May 29, 2008, at 7:34 AM, John Crow wrote:


	If a word changes function but does not change form, is that considered to be a morphological change?  For example, rich, normally considered to be an adjective, can easily function as a noun (the rich).  If it becomes an adverb (richly), morphology is obviously involved here.  What about the adjective-to-noun shift?
	
	Thanks,
	John
	To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" 

	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org <http://ateg.org/> /


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/