This is an example of a very common rhetorical device, anthimeria (the substitution of one part of speech for another). Our dear friend Will Shakespeare does it often. Examples of adjectives used as nouns abound -- e.g., "in few" (Hamlet; The Tempest), "I'll make division of my present ( Twelfth Night: 'present' is here the adjective meaning 'existing now', not the noun meaning 'gift'), and "My false o'erways your true" (Measure for Measure). We do this sort of thing constantly. Paul D. ----- Original Message ---- From: Linda Di Desidero <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 5:12:35 PM Subject: Re: Morphology Janet: "We somehow always seem to stumble on a sentence like this right after I˘ve discussed comparatives and modifiers." How convenient in demonstrating the creative aspects of human language--I think it's great that you stumble on these counter-examples! If nothing else, it takes the edge off of the "correctness mentality" that so many students (and teachers) seem to have. I think it can make the study of grammar much less intimidating to know that there aren't always absolute answers to all questions--or at least that a word doesn't only fit in a single grammatical category, and that category can also depend on function/use (not just lexical semantics). Linda ----------------------------------------------------- Linda Di Desidero, Ph.D. Acting Director, Communication Studies & Professional Writing Communication, Arts, and Humanities University of Maryland University College 3501 University Boulevard East Adelphi, MD 20783-8083 (240) 582-2830 (department) (240) 582-2928 (office) (240) 582-2993 (fax) ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Morphology Here is a sentence I always struggle with when I'm trying to explain sentence structure to students: the best is yet to come. 'best' seems so clearly to be an adjective and yet is so clearly functioning as a noun would function. We somehow always seem to stumble on a sentence like this right after I˘ve discussed comparatives and modifiers. Janet Castilleja -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Morphology Natalie, The "shift vs. ellipsis" argument with examples like "Hey beautiful," as well as more general "shift vs. zero-affixation" arguments, tend to be decided by particular linguists on the basis of other positions they've adopted in their theories -- in other words, I don't think it's possible to step back and look at "linguistics in general" and give a "right" decision on any of those. Those cases don't give analysts any empirical traction to work with, basically, and in the absence of any way to falsify either of the two propositions involved ("there's nothing there" vs. "there's a nothing there"), we just fall back on internal consistency. I suppose it's theoretically possible to resolve the issue if we ever get to the point where we can verify whether there is or isn't a specific subassembly of neurons that fire off whenever a test subject processes an example in which there's a putative gap, but given the number of random factors involved, I don't know if that will ever become feasible. Having said that, the way I would approach "Hey beautiful" is to treat "beautiful" as a deadjectival noun, partly because so many expressions occur that are similar but have an unambiguous noun in the second position (e.g. "Hey dude," "hey knucklehead") that I can't see maintaining the notion that "beautiful" is SO tied to adjectival function that it has to constitute an exception in that use (apologies for the constant barrage of different forms of "that"!). Such an approach does, however, leave me with a bit of a problem if someone uses an expression like "Hey dearest," since the superlative suffix is very adjective-y. 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 Natalie Gerber Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:10 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Morphology Bill and all, Thank you for catching and for so gently correcting my erroneous example. Would you suggest a reading that clarifies why or how the morphological analysis of functional shift differs from zero affixation with inflectional morphemes? On a slightly different topic, too, how would you analyze an example in which an adjective stands in for a noun, as in Hey, beautiful! Would this be considered an instance of functional shift or rather an instance in which an element is understood to be gapped (if that's the right parlance), i.e. the noun. All best, Natalie Gerber ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Spruiell, William C Sent: Thu 5/29/2008 5:52 PM To: [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. 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. 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/> <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/ 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/ 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/