1

Research paper 3

Aljawharah Alkhamis, 442204513

Eng. 504

Dr. Hesham Suleiman Alyousef

 2

Nominalization and Lexical Density

Introduction

Two of the most distinctive features of academic writing are nominalization

frequency and lexical density (LD). Nominalization is defined as “a process
whereby a verb or adjective is converted into a noun” (Givón, 1993, p. 287).
Nominalization can help in focusing on an impersonal tone by eradicating a
subjective tone and removing duplications of words. High LD (i.e contain many
nouns, verb adjective and adverb) gives the reader more information. According to
Halliday and Martin (1993, p. 79), LD is “the density of information in any passage
of text, according to how tightly the lexical items (content words) have been packed
into the grammatical structure”. Both nominalization and LD are related to
producing high-quality academic texts. There is a huge body of research about
nominalization and LD in relation to different types of discourses such as those
found in legal texts (e.g., Mattiello, 2010), technical passages (Spyridakis &
Isakson, 1998), students' written texts (Fatonah, 2016), and academic journals
(Jalilifar et al., 2017). This article aims to explore the uses of nominalization,
problems faced while forming nominalized constructions, and the methods for
analyzing it. In addition, it outlines the benefits and ways of measuring LD.

1. Nominalization

1- Definition and the Functions of Nominalization

The term “nominalization” literally means to turn a word into a noun.

Nominalization is commonly viewed as a characteristic of the language of science,

business, textbooks, and legal texts. Nominalization is used for organizing the texts,

maintaining group identity, paraphrasing, generalizing, classifying, and displaying

unchallengeable authority (Hartnett, 1998). Mattiello (2010) specified three primary

pragmatic functions of nominalizations, namely, promotion of textual cohesion,

condensation of information, and imposition on the addressee (p. 136–139). Through

the first function, nominalization can help promote connectedness by avoiding

repetition. The second function, achieving concision in the writing, is useful

 3

especially in reducing ambiguity. Normalization also allows for greater detail and

improves precision. Finally, introducing new elements such as adjectives into

nominalizations can help clarify the writer's views and notions.

2- English Nominalization

Most languages have different processes for creating nouns from adjectives or verbs.

In English, there are two types of nominalizations: adding a derivation suffix to form

a noun or not adding additional morphology. In the first type, a verb can be

nominalized by using different suffixes (e.g., argument from argue). Similarly,

adjectives may be nominalized by adding different derivation suffixes (e.g., happiness

from happy). In the second type, some verbs and adjectives are nominalized without

derivation suffixes (e.g., change from a verb) according to the syntax of a sentence.

3- The Problematic Form of Nominalization: Gerund and Derived Nominal

Gerunds and derived nominals are nouns that are derived from verbs. Although

both gerunds and derived nominals are types of nominalizations, they have different

characteristics from each other. In addition, they have different meanings and

structures. Their external structure is similar, but they are different in terms of internal

structure.

A gerund can be defined as "the -ing form has a verbal function …… it can also

function as an NP” (Close, 1975, p. 78-79). This form has a mixture of nominal and

verbal characteristics (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1291–1292). Problems regarding the

categorical status of the gerund have been discussed among grammarians, who have

different views on this issue. For example, recent theories of gerunds believe that

lexical categories of gerunds are verbs and nouns simultaneously (such as Hudson,

2003). However, Baker (2005) argues that "gerunds are the fusion of two syntactic

nodes, one a true verb, and the other a ‘nominal Infl’" (p.42). Being “a noun” gives
 4

the gerund the ability to function as the subject and object of a sentence, while being

“a verb” involves the ability to take direct NP complements. This first property is

primarily a matter of external distribution, whereas the second one is primarily a

matter of internal structure (Baker, 2005, p. 5–6). Biber et al. (1999) argue against this

idea by stating that although gerund has nominal and verbal properties, they consider

it a verb because the “ing” form applies mostly to the verb category. Nevertheless,

Aarts' (2007) suggestion is that gerunds do not need to be categorized into a noun or

verb.

Deverbal nouns is a noun that is morphologically derived from a verb through

conversion or suffixation. Deverbal nouns consist of two forms of nouns: nouns

ending in -ing, which are verb+ing, or nouns with something other than “ing” at the

end. The meaning of adverbial nouns is either abstract, such as “arrival”, or concrete,

such as “buildings” (Taher, 2015).

4- Methods for Analysis of the Use of Nominalization in a Text

Researchers have examined how nominalization is used in different texts and

focused on how learners use nominalizations in their writing. Different approaches

are used for investigating the use of nominalization in a text. For example, Mueller

(2015) aimed to identify how the grammatical structure of nominalization affects

meaning. The researcher analyzed different textbooks by using systemic functional

linguistics as a framework for her study.

Jalilifar et al. (2017) aimed to explore different types of nominalizations in the

introduction and method sections of applied linguistic research. Their study utilized

the methods presented in Halliday (1998) and Halliday and Matthiessen (1999),

which consist of 13 types of grammatical metaphors, four of which are for

nominalization. Spyridakis and Isakson (1998) studied the influence of

 5

nominalization on readers’ recalling of technical texts. In this study, learners were

first provided with technical texts, and then, to test them, they were asked to write

down what they recalled from the given texts. It was concluded that nominalization

is most effective for non-native speakers as it helps them in remembering texts.

2. Lexical Density

1. Spoken vs. Written texts

The lexical density is higher in the written text than in the spoken. This claim is

supported by Ure (1971) who introduced the concept of lexical density and he

concluded that "a large majority of the spoken texts have a lexical density of under

40%, while a large majority of the written texts have a lexical density of 40% or

higher" (Ure, 1971 p. 445 as cited in Johansson, 2008). In addition, Halliday and

Martin (1996) stated that “written language tends to be denser than spoken language

often having around four to six lexical words per clause” (p. 76).

2. Importance of Lexical Density

The benefit of LD is that it is a useful measure of how much information there is in a

particular text. Moreover, increasing LD improves the level of writing skill because it

helps a writer to identify content words and function words, as a result of which they

can change the function words to content words, thus making the text more

meaningful and concise. Also, LD can help the reader in understanding the most

significant notions and ideas in the sentence and focusing on what the writer wants to

say. LD is also an indicator of the informative quality of the text. A high index of LD

means that it has more content words to its credit; therefore, it provides more

information.

3. Methods of Measurement
 6

There are several methods for measuring LD. One method was proposed by Ure

(1971) while another was proposed by Halliday (1985). According to Ure (1971), LD

can be measured by calculating the ratio of lexical items to the total number of words.

number of lexical items× 100

Lexical density =
total number of words

However, according to Halliday (1985), LD can be calculated by dividing the

total number of lexical items by the number of ranking clauses.

number of lexical items

Lexical density =
number of ranking clauses
 7

References
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy.

Oxford University Press.

Baker, M. (2005). On Gerunds and the Theory of Categories [Word document].

Rutgers University.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman

grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.

Close, R. A. (1975). A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman.

Fatonah, F. (2016). The Realisation of Nominalisations in Students’ Texts. The Asian

Journal of English Language & Pedagogy, 4, 30–39.

Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar: A function-based introduction. Volume I: Vol. I.

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Halliday, M. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London

Halliday, M. (1990). Spoken and written language (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M., & Martin, J. R. (1996). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power

(Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education) (2nd ed.). The Falmer

Press.

Halliday, M., & Martin, Jr. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power

(Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education) (1st ed.). Routledge.

Hudson, R. (2003). Gerunds Without Phrase Structure. Natural Language &

Linguistic Theory, 21(8), 579–615. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024198917277

Jalilifar, A., Saleh, E., & Don, A. (2017). Exploring nominalization in the

introduction and method sections of applied linguistics research articles: A

qualitative approach. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 14(1), 64–80.

https://doi.org/10.1515/rjes-2017-0009
 8

Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A

developmental perspective. Working papers/Lund University, Department of

Linguistics and Phonetics, 53, 61–79.

Mattiello, E. (2010). Nominalization in English and Italian normative legal texts. ESP

Across Cultures,7, 129–146.

Mueller, B. (2015). Analysis of nominalization in elementary and middle school

science textbooks. [Master's thesis, University of Hamline].

https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/247

Mulatsih, S. (2017). Lexical density and nominalization on the students’ English

paragraphs. Conference on language and language teaching. Universitas Dian

Nuswantoro

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive

grammar of the English language (General grammar) (2nd rev. ed.).

Longman.

Spyridakis, J. H., & Isakson, C. S. (1998). Nominalizations vs. denominalizations: Do

they influence what readers recall? Journal of Technical Writing and

Communication, 28(2), 163–188. https://doi.org/10.2190/01hd-mhu1-qnx9-

r3ye

Taher, I. (2015). The problematic forms of nominalization in English: Gerund, verbal

noun, and deverbal noun. English Linguistics Research, 4(1), 30–40.

https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v4n1p30