Definition and Examples of Nominalization in Grammar

Definition and Examples of Nominalization in Grammar In English grammar, nominalization is a type of word formation in which a verb or an adjective (or another part  of speech) is used as (or transformed into) a noun. The verb form is nominalize. It is also called nouning. In transformational grammar, nominalization refers to the derivation of a noun phrase from an underlying clause. In this sense, an example of nominalization is the destruction of the city, where the noun destruction corresponds to the main verb of a clause and the city to its object (Geoffrey Leech, A Glossary of English Grammar,  2006). Examples and Observations English is truly impressive . . . in the way it lets you construct nouns from verbs, adjectives, and other nouns; blogger and blogosphere are examples. All you have to do is add one of an assortment of suffixes: -acy (democracy), -age (patronage), -al (refusal), -ama (panorama), -ana (Americana), -ance (variance), -ant (deodorant), -dom (freedom), -edge (knowledge), -ee (lessee), -eer (engineer), -er (painter), -ery (slavery), -ese (Lebanese), -ess (laundress), -ette (launderette), -fest (lovefest), -ful (basketful), -hood (motherhood), -iac (maniac), -ian (Italian), -ie or -y (foodie, smoothy), -ion (tension, operation), -ism (progressivism), -ist (idealist), -ite (Israelite), -itude (decripitude), -ity (stupidity), -ium (tedium), -let (leaflet), -ling (earthling), -man or -woman (Frenchman), -mania (Beatlemania), -ment (government), -ness (happiness), -o (weirdo), -or (vendor), -ship (stewardship), -th (length), and -tude (gratitude). . . . At the present moment, everybody seems to be going a bit nuts with noun creation. Journalists and bloggers seem to believe that a sign of being ironic and hip is to coin nouns with such suffixes as -fest (Google baconfest and behold what you find), -athon, -head (Deadhead, Parrothead, gearhead), -oid, -orama, and -palooza. (Ben Yagoda, When You Catch an Adjective, Kill It. Broadway, 2007) Nominalization in Scientific and Technical Writing The forces which operate to encourage nominalization are understandable. Dealing continually in concepts, scientific and technical writers tend to isolate activities such as experimenting, measuring, and analysing as abstract conceptual units in their minds. They are also pushed towards passive constructions, both by tradition and by their own desire to step aside and allow their work to speak for itself. These forces produce characteristic constructions such as: A similar experiment was carried out using the material . . .Sigma preparation was carried out as described . . . So common has carried out become as a general purpose verb that it is a recognized marker of scientific reporting, and television news bulletins commonly adopt the construction when reporting scientific work. . . .Once recognized, nominalization is easy to correct. Whenever you see general-purpose verbs such as carry out, perform, undertake, or conduct look for the word which names the action. Turning the name of the activity back into a verb (preferably active) will undo the nominalization, and make the sentence more direct and easier to read.(Christopher Turk and Alfred John Kirkman, Effective Writing: Improving Scientific, Technical, and Business Communication, 2nd ed. Chapman Hall, 1989) The Dark Side of Nominalization It’s not just that nominalization can sap the vitality of one’s speech or prose; it can also eliminate context and mask any sense of agency. Furthermore, it can make something that is nebulous or fuzzy seem stable, mechanical and precisely defined. . . .Nominalizations give priority to actions rather than to the people responsible for them. Sometimes this is apt, perhaps because we don’t know who is responsible or because responsibility isn’t relevant. But often they conceal power relationships and reduce our sense of what’s truly involved in a transaction. As such, they are an instrument of manipulation, in politics and in business. They emphasize products and results, rather than the processes by which products and results are achieved. (Henry Hitchings, The Dark Side of Verbs-as-Nouns. The New York Times, April 5, 2013) Types of Nominalization Nominalization types differ according to the level of organization at which the nominalization takes place (see also Langacker 1991). . . . [T]hree types of nominalizations can be distinguished: nominalizations at the level of the word (e.g. teacher, Sams washing of the windows), nominalizations which nominalize a structure that lies in between a verb and a full clause (e.g. Sams washing the windows) and, finally, nominalizations consisting of full clauses (e.g. that Sam washed the windows). The latter two types deviate from the normal rank scale of units in that they represent nominals or phrases which consist of clausal or clause-like structures. They have therefore been regarded as problematic, and it has even be claimed that that-structures are not nominalizations (e.g., Dik 1997; McGregor 1997). (Liesbet Heyvaert, A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Mouton de Gruyter, 2003) Nominalizations properly refer to third-order entities, e.g. Cooking involves irreversible chemical changes, in which cooking refers to the process as a generic type, abstracted from a particular token instance at a specific time. A second kind of nominalization involves reference to second-order entities. Here reference is to particular countable tokens of processes, e.g. The cooking took five hours. The third kind of nominalization has been called improper (Vendler 1968). This refers to first-order entities, things with physical substance and often extended in space, e.g. I like Johns cooking, which refers to the food which results from the cooking, (the RESULT OF ACTION AS ACTION metonymy). (Andrew Goatly, Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. John Benjamins, 2007)

The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster At 11:38 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger launched from the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida. As the world watched on TV, the Challenger soared into the sky and then, shockingly, exploded just 73 seconds after take-off. All seven members of the crew, including social studies teacher Sharon Christa McAuliffe, died in the disaster. An investigation of the accident discovered that the O-rings of the right solid rocket booster had malfunctioned. Crew of the Challenger Christa McAuliffe (Teacher in Space)Dick Scobee (Commander)Mike Smith (Pilot)Ron McNair (Mission Specialist)Judy Resnik (Mission Specialist)Ellison Onizuka (Mission Specialist)Gregory Jarvis (Payload Specialist) Should the Challenger Have Launched? Around 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28, 1986, in Florida, the seven crew members of the Space Shuttle Challenger were already strapped into their seats. Though they were ready to go, NASA officials were busy deciding whether it was safe enough to launch that day. It had been extremely cold the night before, causing icicles to form under the launch pad. By morning, temperatures were still only 32 ° F. If the shuttle launched that day, it would the coldest day of any shuttle launch. Safety was a huge concern, but NASA officials were also under pressure to get the shuttle into orbit quickly. Weather and malfunctions had already caused many postponements from the original launch date, January 22. If the shuttle didnt launch by February 1, some of the science experiments and business arrangements regarding the satellite would be jeopardized. Plus, millions of people, especially students across the U.S., were waiting and watching for this particular mission to launch. A Teacher on Board Among the crew on board the Challenger that morning was Sharon Christa McAuliffe. McAuliffe, a social studies teacher at Concord High School in New Hampshire, had been chosen from 11,000 applicants to participate in the Teacher in Space Project. President Ronald Reagan created this project in August 1984 in an effort to increase public interest in the U.S. space program. The teacher chosen would become the first private citizen in space. A teacher, a wife, and a mother of two, McAuliffe represented the average, good-natured citizen. She became the face of NASA for nearly a year before the launch, and the public adored her. The Launch A little after 11:00 a.m. on that cold morning, NASA told the crew that launch was a go. At 11:38 a.m., the Space Shuttle Challenger launched from Pad 39-B at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida. At first, everything seemed to go well. However, 73 seconds after lift-off, Mission Control heard Pilot Mike Smith say, Uh oh! Then people at Mission Control, observers on the ground, and millions of children and adults across the nation watched as the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. The nation was shocked. To this day, many remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard that the Challenger had exploded. It remains a defining moment in the 20th century. Search and Recovery An hour after the explosion, search and recovery planes and ships searched for survivors and wreckage. Though some pieces of the shuttle floated on the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, much of it had sunken to the bottom. No survivors were found.  On January 31, 1986, three days after the disaster, a memorial service was held for the fallen heroes. What Went Wrong? Everyone wanted to know what had gone wrong. On February 3, 1986, President Reagan established the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Former Secretary of State William Rogers chaired the commission, whose members included Sally Ride, Neil Armstrong, and Chuck Yeager. The Rogers Commission carefully studied pictures, video, and debris from the accident. The Commission determined that the accident was caused by a failure in the O-rings of the right solid rocket booster. O-rings sealed the pieces of the rocket booster together. From multiple uses and especially because of the extreme cold on that day, an O-ring on the right rocket booster had become brittle. Once launched, the weak O-ring allowed fire to escape from the rocket booster. The fire melted a support beam that held the booster in place. The booster, then mobile, hit the fuel tank, causing the explosion. Upon further research, it was determined that there had been multiple, unheeded warnings about the potential problems with the O-rings. The Crew Cabin On March 8, 1986, just over five weeks after the explosion, a search team found the crew cabin; it had not been destroyed in the explosion. The bodies of all seven crew members were found, still strapped into their seats. Autopsies were done but exact cause of death was inconclusive. It is believed that at least some of the crew survived the explosion, since three of four emergency air packs found had been deployed. After the explosion, the crew cabin fell over 50,000 feet and hit the water at approximately 200 miles per hour. No one could have survived the impact.