Avoid Nominalizations

Unfortunately, there are many times in school and business when writ-ers are encouraged to make their writing as wordy and technical-sounding as possible. Those who succeed at this misrepresentation usually rely on nominalization, a process that converts a powerful, direct verb like de-cide into a weak, pseudotechnical expression like reach a decision with respect to. Nominalizations (sometimes called “smothered verbs”) are endemic to legal testimony, political press conferences, social sciences, and all other discourse in which the goal is to make ordinary commen-tary sound more like scientific or technical reporting. They are also popular with people who need to break bad news; somehow, it is ar-gued, We have not yet made a selection regarding a project leader sounds less disappointing or incompetent than We have not yet se-lected a project leader.

Many writers and speakers use these constructions incessantly. The clearest evidence is the repetition of the -tion and -ment suffix at the ends of nouns. (I sometimes tell my clients that smothered verbs make a

“shun” sound when they are choking.)

For anyone new to English, nominalizations are perplexing, espe-cially those in the passive voice (“no decision has been reached with respect to”); they are like the multi-word, phrasal verbs mentioned above, in that they lead the reader on fruitless dictionary searches. In general, very few should survive the first draft of a document meant for E2 readers.

The most basic category of smothered verb is a phrase beginning with have or make.

Instead of . . . Use

have an objection object have knowledge of know have reservations about doubt have a suspicion suspect have a concern care, worry

make a distinction distinguish, differentiate make a recommendation recommend

make a suggestion suggest

make a proposal propose

Before:

We did not have sufficient knowledge of the problem to make a proposal regarding a solution.

After:

We did not know enough about the problem to propose a solution.

Smothered verbs can be formed in many ways. Although the most common forms use have and make, there are also hundreds of expres-sions using such words as give, reach, and do.

Instead of . . . Use

give an answer to answer

give an apology apologize

give a justification for justify

reach a conclusion conclude

reach a decision regarding decide

reach an end end, finish

reach an agreement agree

do an inspection of inspect, check

do a draft of draft

raise an objection object

hold the opinion believe

send an invitation to invite

hold a meeting meet

furnish an explanation for explain furnish a solution for solve form a plan regarding plan

Before:

These receipts furnish no explanation for your expenses.

After:

These receipts do not explain your expenses.

Before:

We held a meeting and reached a decision to send him an invitation to the bidders’ conference.

After:

We met and decided to invite him to the bidders’ conference.

The writing of technical professionals, and especially of those who aspire to seem more scientific and analytical than they really are, makes use of an especially ornate and complicated form of smoth-ered verb, using such words as accomplish, achieve, realize, or even effectuate.

Instead of . . . Use

exhibit improvement improve demonstrate success succeed constitute a replacement replace

effectuate a system start-up start up the system evidence size reduction shrink, reduce

To make things worse, this last group often appears in the passive voice of the verb.

Instead of . . . Use

separation was effectuated they separated change was exhibited they changed a profit was realized they profited file linkage was achieved we linked the files

Before:

A tendency to overheat was evidenced by these monitors.

After:

These monitors tended to overheat.

Before:

The calculations to project interim revenues are accomplished entirely in TREND module.

After:

The TREND module projects the interim revenues.

The examples below illustrate what are probably the most widely used nominalizations. Be especially alert to them:

Before (serve):

This report serves to explain the three stages of the project.

After:

This report explains the three stages of the project.

Before (use):

The Backspace key is used to correct errors on the screen.

After:

The Backspace key corrects errors on the screen.

Before (conduct):

The agency will conduct an investigation of the incident.

After:

The agency will investigate the incident.

Before (carry out):

Can we carry out the inspection of this disposal site before November?

After:

Can we inspect this disposal site before November?

Before (perform):

Comparison of the actual and forecast return is performed within the software.

After:

The software compares the actual return with the forecast.

Obviously, these wordy, even tortuous expressions are supposed to impress readers. (They do not, of course.) They certainly add an unnecessary portion of complexity and difficulty to the burden of the E2 reader.

Discussion Questions

• Is easily understood writing more or less impressive to most read-ers than difficult and obscure writing? Under what conditions?

• Should student projects be assigned a minimum length, number of words, or pages?

• Is there some other way to measure the level of student effort?

• Can one write simply without writing down or condescending to the reader?

• Would E2 readers resent the claim that ordinary English needs to be simplified for them?

Sources and Resources

AECMA (Association Européenne de Constructeurs de Materiel Aerospatial).

“AECMA Simplified English Standard.” Brussels, Belgium: AECMA Doc.PSC-85–6598, Issue I, 1995.

Brogan, John. Clear Technical Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Collin, P., M. Lowi, and Weiland, C. Beginner’s Dictionary of American English Usage, Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Ogden, C.K. Basic English, a General Introduction with Rules and Grammar.

London: Paul Trebor & Co, 1932.

Thomas, Margaret, Gloria Jaffee, J. Peter Kincaid, and Yvette Stees. “Learning to Use Simplified English: A Preliminary Study.” Technical Communication 39 (1992).

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Plain English Handbook.

(www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf)

Weiss, Edmond. 100 Writing Remedies. Scottsdale, AZ: Greenwood/Oryx Press, 1990.

Weiss, Edmond. “Twenty-Five Tactics to ‘Internationalize’ Your English.” Inter-com (January 1998) 11–15.

Wilbers, S. Steven Wilbers’ Webpage, http://www.wilbers.com

38

3