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/