Thanks, I like your apprach of taking a standard sentence and then nomilizaing it. I have studying nomilizaiton for a while and this approach really helps. This is the first time this approach was used. Typically it is all about just learning how to nomilize verbs and some examples.
Please, is nominalization a must for all the verbs in a sentence ? Could we say for ex: That an evaluation of results explains the loss in revenue? Thank you so much
No not all verbs as you still need subject + verb agreement in a sentence. Yes, you could say your example - that's perfectly fine. Thanks for your comment.
Watch the video for the answer 🙃. Also check your grammar: can + infinitive NOT can + past participle. So your question should be 'Can you normalise this sentence?'
Great work! 'The definition of a business strategy is [a design of]* a long-term plan of action for the achievement of a particular goal.'' * not necessary but ok.
Hi Ed, thank you so much for your comment. YES, you are correct - it should really be a noun phrase NOT a noun + to inf. We have edited the video and worksheet accordingly.
Hi, thank you for your comment. A key part of nominalisation is that the verbs can be changed into nouns e.g. suggest / suggestion, agree/agreement, decide/decision. The verbs in your two sentences (have/make) don’t really have corresponding nouns. This worksheet includes a range of exercises to help you understand the verbs that can be nominalised: academic-englishuk.com/downloads/academic-passive-grammar/
No sensible guide to writing should actually be encouraging nominalising verbal forms. It makes your writing heavy and slow moving, and encourages waffle and passive verb forms (an analysis has been conducted). Academic writing, generally, has an appalling reputation, and this is one of the reasons why. Shocked and saddened to come across this site.
Hi thanks for your opinion and engagement with the video. Would you mind sharing your authority on the matter and can you offer any supporting evidence for your views? You make a number of claims like 'no sensible guide', 'makes writing heavy and slow moving' 'encourages waffle', 'has an appalling reputation' so what factual evidence (data, research, etc..) do you have for these claims? Also, 'I'm shocked and saddened to come across this site' - do you mean all our 121 videos? Often people who leave comments on this channel seem to think that a video on nominalisation means that all you do is write in nominalised style. Of course, this is one of hundred ways to develop a more academic formal writing style which is generally accepted in the academic community. In addition, it is an integral part of teaching on academic English courses and the assessment processes.
@@AcademicEnglishUK The news that you’re academics at ‘top universities’ doesn’t surprise me. Or that some institutions encourage your advice. No wonder academic writing has, too often, a poor reputation. As some academics know. Have a look, for instance, at Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences by Michael Billig (a professor of sociology). There are wonderful sections denouncing ‘nounification’. Or google ‘Zombie Nouns and Verbs: Why Nominalizations and Passives May Be Killing Your Writing’ by Andy Naselli. He quotes those academics trying to clear the fog. Including Steven Pinker, a famous linguist, whose Sense of Style is often critical about nominalising. One Cambridge book which takes, generally, a sensible line is The Student’s introduction to English Grammar. It’s a university text. The authors say they’ve written it in a ‘very deliberately informal style’. They believe they should ‘employ what we call normal style - roughly the kind of conversational language most instructors would use when explaining something in the classroom’. Notice they didn’t write ‘by the employment of normal style - roughly the conversational language that most instructors would make utilisation of in the classroom when giving an explanation’. I wonder why? Your whole site, from what I’ve read, undermines clarity, naturalness, economy and humanity in writing. Any writing. You are leading impressionable youth into linguistic darkness.
@@AcademicEnglishUK The news that you’re academics at ‘top universities’ doesn’t surprise me. Or that some institutions encourage your advice. No wonder academic writing has, too often, a poor reputation. As some academics know. Have a look, for instance, at Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences by Michael Billig (a professor of sociology). There are wonderful sections denouncing ‘nounification’. Or google ‘Zombie Nouns and Verbs: Why Nominalizations and Passives May Be Killing Your Writing’ by Andy Naselli. He quotes those academics trying to clear the fog. Including Steven Pinker, a famous linguist, whose Sense of Style is often critical about nominalising. One Cambridge book which takes, generally, a sensible line is The Student’s introduction to English Grammar. It’s a university text. The authors say they’ve written it in a ‘very deliberately informal style’. They believe they should ‘employ what we call normal style - roughly the kind of conversational language most instructors would use when explaining something in the classroom’. Notice they didn’t write ‘by the employment of normal style - roughly the conversational language that most instructors would make utilisation of in the classroom when giving an explanation’. I wonder why? Your whole site, from what I’ve read, undermines clarity, naturalness, economy and humanity in writing. Any writing. You are leading impressionable youth into linguistic darkness. Shame on you.
@@AcademicEnglishUK The news that you’re academics at ‘top universities’ doesn’t surprise me. Or that some institutions encourage your advice. No wonder academic writing has, too often, a poor reputation. As some academics know. Have a look, for instance, at Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences by Michael Billig (a professor of sociology). There are wonderful sections denouncing ‘nounification’. Or google ‘Zombie Nouns and Verbs: Why Nominalizations and Passives May Be Killing Your Writing’ by Andy Naselli. He quotes those academics trying to clear the fog. Including Steven Pinker, a famous linguist, whose Sense of Style is often critical about nominalising. One Cambridge book which takes, generally, a sensible line is The Student’s introduction to English Grammar. It’s a university text. The authors say they’ve written it in a ‘very deliberately informal style’. They believe they should ‘employ what we call normal style - roughly the kind of conversational language most instructors would use when explaining something in the classroom’. Notice they didn’t write ‘by the employment of normal style - roughly the conversational language that most instructors would make utilisation of in the classroom when giving an explanation’. I wonder why? Your whole site, from what I’ve read, undermines clarity, naturalness, economy and humanity in writing. Any writing. You are leading impressionable youth into linguistic darkness. Shame on you.
In the third exercise; the interpretation of evidence on climate change shows that it will be a temperate climate this week. the latest indications of the economy provides a crisis in the country .
This is ok but the word 'Climate Change' indicates something negative so temperate climate doesn't really suggest this. How about 'the interpretation of evidence on climate change shows world temperature has increased by 0.12 °C in the last year'.
Thank you for your comment 👍. I think this is a bit better as you need to explain the possibility and time.. The latest indications of the economy provide evidence that there will be possible economic crisis for the country within the next year.
Thanks, I like your apprach of taking a standard sentence and then nomilizaing it. I have studying nomilizaiton for a while and this approach really helps. This is the first time this approach was used. Typically it is all about just learning how to nomilize verbs and some examples.
Glad it was helpful!
Nice explanation ,first it was difficult ,but after watching the video it was crystals
clar
Great 👍
Hi, thanks for your comment. No is the answer. You still need basic subject -verb agreement. Yes, your sentence is perfectly fine.
Thank you very much!! A cristalclear explanation!!!
You're welcome ✅
This really helpful even me was looking at he video and get the normalization
Really glad it helped - thanks for the comment ✅
Please, is nominalization a must for all the verbs in a sentence ?
Could we say for ex: That an evaluation of results explains the loss in revenue?
Thank you so much
No not all verbs as you still need subject + verb agreement in a sentence. Yes, you could say your example - that's perfectly fine. Thanks for your comment.
Wonderful lesson.
Thank you! 😃
Can you nominalised this sentence " we define a business strategy as a long-term plan of action that is designed to achieve a particular goal"
Watch the video for the answer 🙃. Also check your grammar: can + infinitive NOT can + past participle. So your question should be 'Can you normalise this sentence?'
Thanks for the video, it was very helpful
Glad it was helpful! ✅
Nice explaination
Thanks and welcome 🙏🏻
My sentence is : 'The definition of a business strategy is a design of a long-term plan of action for the achievement of a particular goal.''
Great work! 'The definition of a business strategy is [a design of]* a long-term plan of action for the achievement of a particular goal.'' * not necessary but ok.
Thank you so much for correcting me@@AcademicEnglishUK
The phrase "reaction to excessive" does not contain a 'to infinitive'. It is 'noun + preposition + adjective'.
Hi Ed, thank you so much for your comment. YES, you are correct - it should really be a noun phrase NOT a noun + to inf. We have edited the video and worksheet accordingly.
@@AcademicEnglishUK Cool, thanks for your reply. And for the great videos. ☺️👍
Some of the I saw I don't understand them even in the dictionary
Glad to help ✅
8:18
Could you add a bit more information to this? Not sure what it means. 🫤
How can I nominalization
1 the committee will make a formal decision this Friday
2 the police have a good description of the thief
Hi, thank you for your comment. A key part of nominalisation is that the verbs can be changed into nouns e.g. suggest / suggestion, agree/agreement, decide/decision. The verbs in your two sentences (have/make) don’t really have corresponding nouns. This worksheet includes a range of exercises to help you understand the verbs that can be nominalised: academic-englishuk.com/downloads/academic-passive-grammar/
No sensible guide to writing should actually be encouraging nominalising verbal forms. It makes your writing heavy and slow moving, and encourages waffle and passive verb forms (an analysis has been conducted). Academic writing, generally, has an appalling reputation, and this is one of the reasons why. Shocked and saddened to come across this site.
Hi thanks for your opinion and engagement with the video. Would you mind sharing your authority on the matter and can you offer any supporting evidence for your views? You make a number of claims like 'no sensible guide', 'makes writing heavy and slow moving' 'encourages waffle', 'has an appalling reputation' so what factual evidence (data, research, etc..) do you have for these claims? Also, 'I'm shocked and saddened to come across this site' - do you mean all our 121 videos? Often people who leave comments on this channel seem to think that a video on nominalisation means that all you do is write in nominalised style. Of course, this is one of hundred ways to develop a more academic formal writing style which is generally accepted in the academic community. In addition, it is an integral part of teaching on academic English courses and the assessment processes.
@@AcademicEnglishUK The news that you’re academics at ‘top universities’ doesn’t surprise me. Or that some institutions encourage your advice. No wonder academic writing has, too often, a poor reputation. As some academics know. Have a look, for instance, at Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences by Michael Billig (a professor of sociology). There are wonderful sections denouncing ‘nounification’.
Or google ‘Zombie Nouns and Verbs: Why Nominalizations and Passives May Be Killing Your Writing’ by Andy Naselli. He quotes those academics trying to clear the fog. Including Steven Pinker, a famous linguist, whose Sense of Style is often critical about nominalising.
One Cambridge book which takes, generally, a sensible line is The Student’s introduction to English Grammar. It’s a university text. The authors say they’ve written it in a ‘very deliberately informal style’. They believe they should ‘employ what we call normal style - roughly the kind of conversational language most instructors would use when explaining something in the classroom’. Notice they didn’t write ‘by the employment of normal style - roughly the conversational language that most instructors would make utilisation of in the classroom when giving an explanation’. I wonder why?
Your whole site, from what I’ve read, undermines clarity, naturalness, economy and humanity in writing. Any writing. You are leading impressionable youth into linguistic darkness.
@@AcademicEnglishUK The news that you’re academics at ‘top universities’ doesn’t surprise me. Or that some institutions encourage your advice. No wonder academic writing has, too often, a poor reputation. As some academics know. Have a look, for instance, at Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences by Michael Billig (a professor of sociology). There are wonderful sections denouncing ‘nounification’.
Or google ‘Zombie Nouns and Verbs: Why Nominalizations and Passives May Be Killing Your Writing’ by Andy Naselli. He quotes those academics trying to clear the fog. Including Steven Pinker, a famous linguist, whose Sense of Style is often critical about nominalising.
One Cambridge book which takes, generally, a sensible line is The Student’s introduction to English Grammar. It’s a university text. The authors say they’ve written it in a ‘very deliberately informal style’. They believe they should ‘employ what we call normal style - roughly the kind of conversational language most instructors would use when explaining something in the classroom’. Notice they didn’t write ‘by the employment of normal style - roughly the conversational language that most instructors would make utilisation of in the classroom when giving an explanation’. I wonder why?
Your whole site, from what I’ve read, undermines clarity, naturalness, economy and humanity in writing. Any writing. You are leading impressionable youth into linguistic darkness. Shame on you.
@@AcademicEnglishUK The news that you’re academics at ‘top universities’ doesn’t surprise me. Or that some institutions encourage your advice. No wonder academic writing has, too often, a poor reputation. As some academics know. Have a look, for instance, at Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences by Michael Billig (a professor of sociology). There are wonderful sections denouncing ‘nounification’.
Or google ‘Zombie Nouns and Verbs: Why Nominalizations and Passives May Be Killing Your Writing’ by Andy Naselli. He quotes those academics trying to clear the fog. Including Steven Pinker, a famous linguist, whose Sense of Style is often critical about nominalising.
One Cambridge book which takes, generally, a sensible line is The Student’s introduction to English Grammar. It’s a university text. The authors say they’ve written it in a ‘very deliberately informal style’. They believe they should ‘employ what we call normal style - roughly the kind of conversational language most instructors would use when explaining something in the classroom’. Notice they didn’t write ‘by the employment of normal style - roughly the conversational language that most instructors would make utilisation of in the classroom when giving an explanation’. I wonder why?
Your whole site, from what I’ve read, undermines clarity, naturalness, economy and humanity in writing. Any writing. You are leading impressionable youth into linguistic darkness. Shame on you.
In the third exercise;
the interpretation of evidence on climate change shows that it will be a temperate climate this week.
the latest indications of the economy provides a crisis in the country .
This is ok but the word 'Climate Change' indicates something negative so temperate climate doesn't really suggest this. How about 'the interpretation of evidence on climate change shows world temperature has increased by 0.12 °C in the last year'.
the latest indications of the economy provides a crisis in the country
Thank you for your comment 👍. I think this is a bit better as you need to explain the possibility and time.. The latest indications of the economy provide evidence that there will be possible economic crisis for the country within the next year.
8:04
I've given feedback on your written sentences - see other comments 🤩
6:25
Could you add a bit more information to this? Not sure what it means. 🫤