English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

When a noun is used as a verb, linguistically, this process is termed as morphological conversion:

Fish (n): This is a fish.
Fish (v): I'm fishing in the river.

Why shouldn't we call it syntactic conversion? The word itself didn't change only the grammatical role has been affected?

And if an adjective, for example, is converted into a verb by adding a derivational suffix, then it should be called morphological conversion. Am I right?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by MrHen, RegDwigнt Jul 21 '11 at 17:55

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I would not call it morphological conversion in English, since as you say there is no change in morphology. In many languages there would need to be a change in morphology. I wonder if you are using a reference which does not primarily or solely refer to English?

share|improve this answer
Linguistic sources call it conversion in field of morphology. However, Beth Levin calls it syntactic alternation. – Mohammad Abdollahi Aug 2 '11 at 16:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.