Nominalisation

Nominalisation Definition: "The use of a noun, noun phrase or pronoun to express an idea that has previously been expressed in a longer form elsewhere."

Nominalisation is typical feature of academic writing in most disciplines. This is because it helps to create a sense of cohesions between the different segments of texts (sentences or paragraphs). When a writer nominalises, they utilise an abstract noun, or pronoun, to encapsulate what had been said in the sentence of paragraph above. For instance:

Example:

"We undertook a mixed-methods cross-sectional study embedded within the Uveitis in Childhood Prospective National Cohort Study (UNICORNS). This approach allowed us to survey children newly diagnosed with non-infectious uveitis since March 2020."

Analysis

In the extract above, 'this approach' is the nominalised form. It allows the student to link sentence one and sentence two without having to repeat, in long form, the method described in the previous text.

Is it Possible to Over-Nominalise?

While nominalisation can be a very effective tool for academic writers, it is certainly possible to over-nominalise! If overused within a paragraph, nominalisation can create stylistic (or readability) problems with your writing. Namely, it can make the writing feel overly dense or circular.

Oxford Nominalisation, and Ove-Nominalisation, Examples

Nominalisation Examples

Consider these examples below of how students have effectively nominalised in their text:

Extract 1: "This"

"When intracellular levels of ATP are decreased, AMP or adenosine diphosphate (ADP) can bind directly to the γ regulatory subunit. 

Analysis

Often writers use the demonstrative pronoun "this" to refer to the last clause in the previous sentence.

"This" encapsulates the last verb phrase and, in this instance, means "AMP or adenosine diphosphate (ADP) binding directly to the γ regulatory subunit".  Using "This" allows the writer to avoid the repetitive and wordy formulation.

Extract  2: "This + Abstract Noun"

"Watt’s understanding of the novel as defined by its focus on stories of individuals may, then, draw too strict a line between stories of individuals and stories of a changing society. This strict division beautifully demonstrates a problem that Margaret Doody identifies in her True Story of the Novel (1996) while discussing the role of religion in the novel’s origins, the problem of identifying and recognizing cultural simultaneity."

Analysis

Writers often use the formulation "this" plus an abstract noun to refer to the previous sentence.

"This division" encapsulates the last noun phrase and means "too strict a line between stories of individuals and stories of a changing society." The text achieves cohesion because the reader recognises the semantic similarity between "draw a line" and "division".

Without the words "this division", the writer would have to write the much longer formulation:

 "Watt’s understanding of the novel as defined by its focus on stories of individuals may, then, draw too strict a line between stories of individuals and stories of a changing society.  Watt's drawing too strict a line between stories of individuals and stories of a changing society beautifully demonstrates a problem that Margaret Doody identifies in her True Story of the Novel (1996) while discussing the role of religion in the novel’s origins, the problem of identifying and recognizing cultural simultaneity."

Extract 3: Creating Technical Terms (i.e. Jargon)

"Our data synthesis revealed a net change of 1.8% and 3.2% woody cover per decade in the tundra and savanna, respectively. Of those sites experiencing cover increases, the mean increase rate was 3.7% and 6.3% per decade in the tundra and savanna but reported published estimates varied widely. Tundra cover increase estimates range from 1.2% per decade over the last 70 years in northern Alaska, to modelling projections of 14% per decade across the pan-Arctic. This cross-biome quantification of woody encroachment agrees with previous studies of global global and regional scope from the tundra and the savanna."

Analysis

Writers often nominalise to construct technical terminology, often in the form of noun phrases. This writer has condensed their description of a complex, scientific method into a noun phrase, calling it a "cross-biome quantification of woody encroachment".

Extract 4: Adding Insights

"The concept of psycho-analysis cuts short this discussion just as effectively as the proposals put forward by Fechner. This problematic field of study is based on a set of concepts and conclusions that, while taken for granted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, are often not borne out in practice."

Analysis

In the example above, the student inserts the adjective 'problematic' into the nominalised formulation "this + abstract noun" (i.e. field of study). This allows the writer to incorporate their own expert interpretation of the subject matter, while at the same time reducing it into a more manageable form.

Over-Nominilsation Example

In the example below, the writer has nominalised numerous times within the same paragraph. Consider the impact that this has on the writer, particularly if this style is repeated over a significant number of pages, as well as the analysis.

Extract: Over-nominalisation

"Halliday’s contributions in this area have been influential, though they have also been primarily theoretical rather than descriptive. His findings are therefore fairly limited in the scope of the features considered above and are not supported by empirical data. To address some of these concerns, Banks (2008) adopts essentially the same theoretical framework as Halliday. However, the mode of research he employs takes on an empirical/quantitative analysis of the historical development of scientific research. Such an approach highlights three major features or patterns within the sciences... Regarding the last pattern, Banks’ findings support the expected conclusion that such analytic forms have increased in use historically in both physical and biological sciences (see Banks 2008: 124). This further substantiates the conclusion that…"

Analysis

Extract 4 contains too much nominalisation as the reader must deal with myriad abstract concepts, none of which are developed in sufficient detail.

The writer's initial topic is "Halliday's contributions" and the next line uses the nominalisation "findings" to encapsulate the previous sentence. However, the writer fails to develop the claim that Halliday's findings are " are ... limited" or "not supported by empirical data".  That is, they do not include an explanation or examples of why they are "limited" or "not supported". 

Instead of supporting these points, the writer immediately moves to how another writer has addressed those problems with the further nominalisation: "these concerns". Then, for the third time, the writer encapsulates the meaning of the previous sentence, this time with the noun phrase "the mode of research he employs". More nominalisations is to follow.

When writers over-nominalise in this way, they often fail to develop ideas and provide only shallow argumentation. That is, they move from one idea to another before providing much depth regarding the first idea, where "depth" may often be explanation, exemplification or challenge. From a stylistic perspective, over-nominalisation creates this circularity effect, where the text takes two steps forward and one step back.