tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post278676919490487282..comments2024-03-14T10:31:26.918+00:00Comments on DCblog: On nominalisationsDChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-7162364511229290762012-02-03T21:46:24.787+00:002012-02-03T21:46:24.787+00:00Hi David,
I call them 'ghost verbs', sinc...Hi David,<br /><br />I call them 'ghost verbs', since many were once living verbs, and they are a rich source of diversity in any writing. In my EssayAudit readability matrix, I suggest an average 1.5 syllables per word in any writing, meaning that strings of ghost verbs need to be managed, not exised. Here's an example: http://www.slideshare.net/RonDenholm/2-quick-steps-to-better-business-writing<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Ron DenholmRon Denholmhttp://miningnexus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-10420332864798935672008-09-05T08:48:00.000+00:002008-09-05T08:48:00.000+00:00Indeed. The best guides are those which draw atten...Indeed. The best guides are those which draw attention to the grey areas, like Pam Peters' Cambridge Guide. But even Fowler was conscious of grey areas, and often identified them.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-31151861685432193292008-09-04T23:36:00.000+00:002008-09-04T23:36:00.000+00:00In my experience, often the style guide is NOT ove...In my experience, often the style guide is NOT overstating the case but the reader is just taking it too seriously. For example, a lot of writers think passives are "bad." But they base this on sources that don't state it in such absolute terms. <BR/><BR/>Nominalizations can, indeed, stink to high heaven (esp. when combined with passives and esp. in action-oriented fiction).<BR/><BR/>"The shooting of John was done by Bill" vs. "Bill shot John."<BR/><BR/>I suspect the problem lies with people's fear of grammar and how this can take on almost religious qualities. A sin is a sin -- there's no gray area. So when people hear, "Try to avoid nominalizations," they interpret it with some "thou shalt not" thrown in. Add that to many people's belief that any one style guide is preaching a universal "gospel," and you end up with a whole lotta fear and frustration.June Casagrandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00363096837053080969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-62343311925991173002008-09-01T08:33:00.000+00:002008-09-01T08:33:00.000+00:00No ideas, I'm afraid. Never looked at it.No ideas, I'm afraid. Never looked at it.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-36588790147901601422008-08-31T23:20:00.000+00:002008-08-31T23:20:00.000+00:00David,Work on nominalisations have underpinned a l...David,<BR/><BR/>Work on nominalisations have underpinned a lot of linguistic theories haven't they? Chomsky's for a start. <BR/><BR/>As far as style is concerned, my own take on that the use of nominalisations is justified by for cultural and historical reasons.<BR/><BR/>In essay writing, derived from the ancient art of rhetoric, we discuss - debate - what is true and what is not true. <BR/><BR/>The implication is that, if we are speaking of the truth and not "mere" opinion, we need to distance ourselves from the language. So it's a pragmatic choice. We choose to nominalise when we are making claims about the truth and we want to signal that we are engaged in a specific type of academic discourse.<BR/><BR/>Now academic discourse varies from culture to culture. In the East, for example, students add gravitas to their statements by saying "we". Well, this is logical in a culture where the metaphor for learning is the "receipt" of wisdom. In this kind of culture debate would imply the rejection of wisdom, I suppose.<BR/><BR/>In other cultures, individualistic styles of debate are rejected in favour of the negotiation of meaning inside a small community of learners which itself is nested in a broader community.<BR/><BR/>Our model is not superior, in fact it is slightly duplicitous as we hide formulated opinion behind a veneer of truth telling.<BR/><BR/>This style of objectivising rhetoric is particularly harmful as it tends to license scientism to do its worst.<BR/><BR/>So, in my view, using nominalisations makes a lot of sense, but mainly in the Anglo-American academic tradition. Not using nominalisations would be bad style in this context.<BR/><BR/>What ideas do you have on the differences in the use of nominalisations across cultures?<BR/><BR/>I think it would be comparatively easy to do a corpus study - perhaps simply by using Google.Philip Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651875715129829182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-64248834058250453462008-08-29T09:53:00.000+00:002008-08-29T09:53:00.000+00:00And of course "the rejection of the proposal", ins...And of course "the rejection of the proposal", instead of "X rejected the proposal", allows for more complex sentences, since now we have a noun phrase which can be the subject of a sentence or subordinate clause, or the complement of a verb, preposition, or even another noun. (E.g., "Russia's rejection of the European proposal led to American anger ..." instead of "Russia rejected the European proposal and America got angry")<BR/><BR/>I sometimes wonder if these usage prescriptions are <I>designed</I> to produce things like:<BR/><BR/>Europe proposed a ceasefire. But Russia rejected it. So America got angry.<BR/><BR/>Because that's where they're going...The Ridger, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01538111197270563075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-54818371708577091672008-08-29T09:40:00.000+00:002008-08-29T09:40:00.000+00:00Not quite sure what this comment is doing on this ...Not quite sure what this comment is doing on this post - but I don't know how to transfer it to the relevant one, which would (I imagine) be 'On being linguistically defeated', so it has to stay here! It's not an unusual situation, anyway. Indeed, it seems to be increasing, as people in Europe become more mobile. There's more semilingualism and mixed languages around than ever before. It's not something to be worried about, it seems to me. Languages are tools, and we should use them to do whatever job we need.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-30703545709807436642008-08-27T21:46:00.000+00:002008-08-27T21:46:00.000+00:00Help!I am a Turkish girl from Istanbul. Went to It...Help!<BR/><BR/>I am a Turkish girl from Istanbul. Went to Italian school and took Italian, English and Latin.<BR/>But I grown up with French people too. So I learned French at private school.<BR/>Married to an Italian who speaks Friulano with his parents (which I do understand but cannot speak).<BR/>Plus, we have a house in Hamburg (Because of his job) So I have started to speak German!<BR/>Since 5 months I am in Paris (because of job). And I don't even remember in which language I have spoken with who. Seems so natural to understand all :(<BR/><BR/>I do not know even in which language I think... It is not good to understand everything :(<BR/>What can I do?? How my brain works? On objects? Or words?<BR/><BR/>(Ohh I have studied communication at the university)... No way, still ignorant, still no answer...<BR/><BR/><BR/>(There's a documentary on Italian tv, They are showing your speech)<BR/><BR/>Bests,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com