A functional change is usually considered a change in category, that is, a derivational change. English plural is inflectional, not derivational, and so would not qualify as a functional shift. We have a number of instances of adjectives, generally monosyllabic, that can be used also as adverbs, including "fast," "slow," "quick," "hard," etc. This usage goes back to Old English and is not the result of -ly dropping, at least not etymologically. The -ly forms arise by analogy.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: May 30, 2008 12:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 28 May 2008 to 29 May 2008 (#2008-119)
A functional change can be purely semantic; e.g., the 0 plural allomorph for
sheep. Note that the adjective having a flat allomorph of its derived
adverb (e.g., a slow driver; Go slow.)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 28 May 2008 to 29 May 2008 (#2008-119)
There are 5 messages totalling 421 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Morphology (5)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 10:34:27 -0400
From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Morphology
------=_Part_11997_19666464.1212071667941
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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/
------=_Part_11997_19666464.1212071667941
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
If a word changes function but does not change form, is that considered to
be a morphological change? For example, <b>rich</b>, normally
considered to be an adjective, can easily function as a noun (<b>the
rich</b>). If it becomes an adverb (<b>richly</b>), morphology is
obviously involved here. What about the adjective-to-noun shift?<br>
<br>Thanks,<br>John<br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_Part_11997_19666464.1212071667941--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:10:16 -0700
From: "Kathleen M. Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Morphology
--Apple-Mail-11--309101290
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
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/
>
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/
--Apple-Mail-11--309101290
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; =
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">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.=A0<div><br></div><div>Kathleen M. Ward</div><div>UC =
Davis<br><div><div>On May 29, 2008, at 7:34 AM, John Crow =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">If a word changes function but does not change form, is =
that considered to be a morphological change?=A0 For example, =
<b>rich</b>, normally considered to be an adjective, can easily function =
as a noun (<b>the rich</b>).=A0 If it becomes an adverb (<b>richly</b>), =
morphology is obviously involved here.=A0 What about the =
adjective-to-noun shift?<br> <br>Thanks,<br>John<br> To join or leave =
this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muo=
hio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select "Join or leave the list" <p> =
Visit ATEG's web site at <a =
href=3D"http://ateg.org">http://ateg.org</a>/</p></blockquote></div><br></=
div></body></html>=
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--Apple-Mail-11--309101290--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:01:59 -0400
From: Natalie Gerber <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Morphology
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.
=20
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.
=20
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. =20
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?
=09
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"=20
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"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:46:49 -0400
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Morphology
Zero affixation is different from functional shift, as Natalie's example su=
ggests. The plural of "deer" is "deer." That would be considered zero aff=
ixation, where some, usually ill-defned, subset of a word class does not ta=
ke the expected suffix. Usually zero suffixation is inflectional, as with =
this plural example. Functional shift is a derivational process. In a lan=
guage like English where there is so much inflectional morphology and so li=
ttle of it regular, there is no expected suffix for changing a word from a =
noun to a verb, or from any category to any other category, and so the term=
s "functional shift," "zero derivation," and "conversion" are ways of label=
ing changes in word class that have no effect on stem form.
Herb
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]
U] On Behalf Of Natalie Gerber [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: May 29, 2008 2:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Morphology
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 s=
uch changes as zero affix, which accounts for the fact that, e.g., in irreg=
ular 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 th=
at is variously called "conversion," "functional shift," or "zero-morph der=
ivation.
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 consid=
ered to be a morphological change? For example, rich, normally considered =
to be an adjective, can easily function as a noun (the rich). If it become=
s an adverb (richly), morphology is obviously involved here. What about th=
e adjective-to-noun shift?
Thanks,
John
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web in=
terface 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/
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/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:52:36 -0400
From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Morphology
I've seen some accounts that appear to be treating all "affixless
category-changing derivation" as zero-affixation -- but it's because of
a theoretical position that forces that kind of analysis. If I remember
correctly (with an even bigger *if* than is usual), there are approaches
that mandate that the grammatical category of a complex element be that
of its head, even in morphology. Thus, a deverbal noun (for example) has
to have a nominal "head." With normal category-shifting affixes, such
approaches can treat the affix as the head, so "motion" has "-tion" as a
head, and "move" governed by it. With functional conversion, the zero
has to "be" there so it can act as a head with a grammatical category.=20
Zero elements make me skittish -- they're too easy to "cheat" with in
theory construction -- so I particularly like the approach Herb lays
out, where they're limited to exception cases in paradigms where other
words would have affixes. I'm even happier just to think of them as
notational conventions, since (to mangle a classic line) I'm not sure
how one would establish whether or not there's any "there" there.=20
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Morphology
Zero affixation is different from functional shift, as Natalie's example
suggests. The plural of "deer" is "deer." That would be considered
zero affixation, where some, usually ill-defned, subset of a word class
does not take the expected suffix. Usually zero suffixation is
inflectional, as with this plural example. Functional shift is a
derivational process. In a language like English where there is so much
inflectional morphology and so little of it regular, there is no
expected suffix for changing a word from a noun to a verb, or from any
category to any other category, and so the terms "functional shift,"
"zero derivation," and "conversion" are ways of labeling changes in word
class that have no effect on stem form.
Herb
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Natalie Gerber
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: May 29, 2008 2:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Morphology
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/
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 28 May 2008 to 29 May 2008 (#2008-119)
***********************************************************
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/
|
