Just Say NO to Nominalisation

Last year, my colleague Richard de Grijs wrote about his aversion for the word “utilise” when the word “‘use’ would suffice”. I agree with him, and I too delete all instances of “utilise” I come across when editing manuscripts.

But this is a problem for which “utilise” is perhaps the most notable symptom: nominalisation.

Nominalisation happens when one takes a perfectly useful verb and makes it into a noun. This results in abstract nouns that, according to Angelika H. Hofmann, “make your writing heavy and much harder to comprehend”.

Sentences consist of a subject and a verb; the subject being whoever is performing the action related by the verb. Readers expect that the subject (noun) performing the action to be a concrete entity—a person, animal, or thing. Abstract nouns, on the other hand, refer to ideas, qualities or states. But why would they result in heavier text? Well, because they make the sentence’s subject harder to identify. Additionally, since abstract nouns can seldom perform an action, we need to use extra words to convey our meaning properly, and these words are often “weak” verbs.

Compare these sentences:

1. We measured the temperature

2. We took measurements of the temperature.

In both sentences the subject is easily identifiable; sentence 1, however, is shorter and more direct thanks to its strong verb. In sentence 2, the nominalised verb requires an additional weak verb to convey the same meaning.

Nominalised verbs and abstract nouns have another issue: they are often used in the passive voice. Whereas in the active voice the subject performs the action, in the passive voice, the subject becomes the object of the action. An example:

3. We decided to submit the paper.

4. A decision was made to submit the paper.

Sentence 3 uses a strong verb in the active voice, and the meaning is clear. Sentence 4 uses an abstract verb, and the subject… where’s the subject? Technically, the abstract noun is the subject of this sentence, but the agent performing the action (who made the decision) is hidden. This combination can make your sentence harder to understand.

Academic papers are so full of nominalisations and passive voice that some people refer to this style as “academese”. And while some argue that nominalisation is desirable to achieve a more professional or technical prose, these types of sentences can make academic papers difficult to read, especially for people who speak English as a second (or third) language. Since we should strive for clarity in our writing—and since advice for academic writing suggests that we use active verbs and avoid the passive voice—then it follows that we should also avoid nominalisations.

However, not all nominalisations are bad—and neither is the passive voice. These abstract nouns are useful when we want to call attention to the process, and not the agent performing the action.  Phrases such as “crystallization of the compound was achieved at 25 ºC” or “removal of the defective parts improved function” can convey a lot of information and may be especially useful in the Methodology or Results section of a paper.

As with everything in life, the key to using nominalisation is balance. So, before we take a measurement, make a decision, or reach an agreement, we should think whether it would be better for us to measure, decide, or agree.

Alex Arreola teaches academic writing at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the College of Biological Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, in México. Among her likes are clear sentences, strong verbs, and cheese.