17 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW

OF

RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies relevant in the nominalization of verbs. The concepts derived from these readings give further insights into the topic under consideration. Chomskys Remarks on Nominalization In his 1970 paper Remarks on Nominalization, Noam Chomsky (1970) provided several arguments for the lexical hypothesis, rejection, namely growth, the and idea so on that are nouns nouns like refusal, the

throughout

entire syntactic derivation (Chomsky, 1970). In Chomskys view, a person who has learned a language has acquired a system of rules that relate sound and

meaning in a certain specific way. He has, in other words, acquired a certain competence that he puts to use in

producing and understanding speech (Chomsky, 1970). Since the central task of descriptive linguistics is to construct grammars of specific languages, language-learning then is the process of selecting a grammar of the appropriate form that relates sound and meaning (Chomsky, 1970). Grammar is a tightly organized system. If we modify one part, it generally involves widespread modification of other facets. It follows, then, that enrichment of one

18 component other handled of the Thus grammar certain the will permit simplification problems can in be the

parts. by

descriptive lexicon and

enriching

simplifying

categorical component of the base, or conversely; or by simplifying the base at the cost of greater complexity of transformations, or conversely (Chomsky, 1970). However, the proper balance between various components of the grammar is entirely an empirical issue. There are no general considerations that settle this matter but rather, the evaluation procedure must itself be selected on

empirical grounds to get the correct answer. It would be pure that dogmatism the to maintain, without or empirical the evidence, or the

categorical

component,

lexicon,

transformational component must be narrowly constrained by universal conditions, the variety and complexity of

language being attributed to the other components (Chomsky, 1970). It is in this regard that Chomskys lexicalist

hypothesis on nominalization arose. According to a paper by Frederick J. Newmeyer (2011) on Chomsky (1970), Chomsky

argued that an important class of nominalizations what he called derived nominals were listed in the lexicon as such; that is, nor they were did they not occur underlyingly in full from

sentences,

derived

transformationally

19 verbs (Newmeyer, 2011). He also enumerated, based on

Chomskys (1970) paper, three types of nominalization in English. First, he called attention to gerundive nominals, as in (1): (1) a. Johns riding his bicycle rapidly (surprised me). b. Marys not being eager to please (was

unexpected). c. Sues having solved the problem (made life easy for us). Second, he pointed to derived nominals, as in (2): (2) a. Johns decision to leave (surprised me). b. Marys eagerness to please (was unexpected). c. Sues help (was much appreciated). And he referred to an intermediate class, as in (3), all of whose members have the suffix ing like gerundive nominals: (3) a. Johns refusing of the offer b. Johns proving of the theorem c. the growing of tomatoes (Newmeyer, 2011). Chomsky had no problem with the idea that gerundive nominals are desentential, given that they exhibit all the hallmarks of full sentences. His lexicalist hypothesis,

20 however, posited that derived nominals (DN) are dimply

listed as nouns in the lexicon (Newmeyer, 2011). Furthermore, Newmayer states, Chomsky gave three

arguments for lexicalist hypothesis. He calls the first one the Idiosyncrasy Argument (Newmeyer, 2011). It was well accepted regular between that a transformational relationship, their for rule but should the verbs every capture a

productive DNs and

relationship is DN highly has a

corresponding one thing, not

irregular,

because,

corresponding verb (Chomsky, 1970). In those cases in which no verb corresponding to a DN exists, a transformational account would have to invent an abstract verb whose only function would be e.g. do to to undergo deed. of the nominalization further allow argued their

transformation, that lexicalist

Chomsky

treatment

DNs

could

irregularity to be captured in a natural manner (Newmeyer, 2011). Chomskys hypothesis Structure was second dubbed argument by for as the the Its lexicalist Internal point of

Newmeyer 2011).

Argument

(Newmeyer,

departure is that fact that the structures in which DNs occur resemble noun phrases in every way. They can contain determiners, pronominal adjectives, and prepositional

phrase complements, but not adverbs, negation, aspect, nor

21 tense (Newmeyer, 2011). Such facts follow automatically if DNs are nouns in the lexicon and are inserted as such; that is, a lexicalist treatment predicts them to have the same distribution as ordinary nouns (Newmeyer, 2011). Chomskys Argument, was third more argument, complex. the The Frozen in Structure need of

problem

explanation is that DNs occur in noun phrase corresponding to base structures, but not to transformationally derived structures (Chomsky, 1970). Based on his findings, Chomsky is concludes for for the the that the

transformational nominals hypothesis and for

hypothesis lexical derived

correct

gerundive lexical though

the the

hypothesis nominals

and

perhaps,

much less clearly so, for the mixed forms (Chomsky, 1970). The Process of Nominalization Conversion is the formation of new words by converting words of one class into another class, i.e. by turning

words of one part of speech to those of another part of speech in traditional terms (www.jimyspa.com). Nominalization is one such process. Quoting The Oxford Companion to English Language (1992), Jezdinka (2008)

defines nominalization as the process or result of forming a noun from a word belonging to another word class or the process or result of deriving a noun phrase by a

22 transformation from a finite clause (Jezdinka, 2008). To put it simply, verbs, nominalization adjectives, is or the adverbs process into of

transforming

nouns

(Cameron, 2011). Two types of nominalization are found in English. One type requires the addition of a derivational suffix to

create a noun. In other cases, English uses the same word as noun without is any additional to morphology. as This second

process

referred

zero-derivation

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization). In creating nominalizations with derivational

morphology, a grammatical expression is turned into a noun phrase by use of affixes. For example, in the sentence

Combine the two chemicals, combine acts as a verb. This can be turned into a noun via the addition of the suffix -ation, as in The experiment involved the combination of the two chemicals. Additional examples of this is failure (from fail), movement (from move) and reaction (from

react). An especially common case of verbs being used as nouns is the addition of the suffix ing, known in English as a gerund. (from Some examples and are swimming editing (from (from swim), edit)

running

run),

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization).

23 In nominalization using the process of zero-

derivation, verbs and sometimes adjectives in English can be used directly as nouns without the addition of a

derivational suffix. Some examples include: Change I need a change. (noun) I will change. (verb)

Murder The murder of the man was tragic. (noun) He will murder the man. (verb) In addition to true zero derivation, English also has a number of words which, depending on subtle changes in pronunciation, are either nouns or verbs. One such type is the change in stress placement, as in the case of REcord (noun) and

reCORD(verb)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization). Moultman linguistic (2006) refers that to nominalization expressions of as the

process

turns

various

categories into nouns (Moultman, 2006). He enumerated four views, or four types of nominalization: 1. Nominalizations that refer to an argument of the base expression. result Some cases of this as kind well are agent as and

nominalizations,

event

nominalizations.

24 2. Nominalizations that refer to reifications of

meanings. These are supposed to act as singular terms referring to the meaning of the adjectives from which they are derived, i.e. the properties such adjectives express. 3. Nominalizations that introduce new objects. These

refer to objects whose nature is entirely given by the meaning of the base expression without being identical to that meaning. 4. Nominalizations that do not refer at all. In this

view, there are no actual objects nominalizations of the relevant sort stand for. There are several reasons for nominalization. One is that it makes texts impersonal and authoritative. By

turning actions into nouns we make the texts sound less personal and more authoritative. is Another is to add

informationnominalization

particularly

useful

because

we can do several things to add information to nouns. The last is to avoid repetition. We can use nominalization to avoid repetition when we want to refer back to a previously mentioned idea; i.e. nominalization can paraphrase what has been (www.slideshare.net/pietvanderlaan/nominalization). said

25 Deverbal Nouns There are three kinds of nominalizations: deverbal

(verbs to nouns), de-adjective (adjectives to nouns) and miscellaneous others (www.jimmyspa.com). For the purpose of discussion in this paper, we will concentrate on deverbals, or the nominalization of verbs. In verbs grammar, or verb deverbal phrases. to as nouns are nouns may of a be the derived from

Deverbals what facet

categorized process is

semantically construed

according

thing Deverbal

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deverbal_noun).

nouns are extremely common in written and spoken English (Crouch, De Paiva, Gurevich and King, 2006). Despite the frequency of deverbal nouns, most lexical resources currently available do not provide systematic

correspondences between deverbals and verbs (Crouch, et.al, 2006). Citing Roeper (2005), Monika Rathert and Artemis

Alexiadou (2010) even assert that deverbal nouns have been important and controversial in linguistic research, as they constitute an instance of structures showing categorically ambivalent behavior (Rathert and Alexiadou, 2010). As is often the case with derived words, some

deverbals are highly lexicalized and no longer retain a connection to the original verb (Crouch, et.al, 2006).

26 Also, according to Crouch, et.al. (2006), the

linguistic literature distinguishes two types of nominals: so-called process nominals and result nominals. Process nominals imply that the event has taken place, and the

nominal refers to the action. Result nominals, by contrast, refer to the goal or result of the process. Thus, result nominals are less action-like (Crouch, et.al, 2006). On the other hand, Andersen (2000) postulates that

deverbal nouns are hybrid forms between the categories noun and verb. This means more specifically of that they and share some

some

characteristics

typical

verbs

characteristics typical of nouns (Andersen, 2000). Although nouns and verbs are semantically related, the issue of whether has nouns, a like verbs, deal license of argument

structure (Alexiadou,

provoked For

great

controversy to Andersen

2001).

instance,

according

(2000), typical nouns have specific reference as opposed to typical verbs, which do not refer at all. Typical nouns denote countable entities or objects and are easily

pluralized as opposed to verbs (Andersen, 2000). However, in recent years, there is a certain amount of consensus that nouns do of not behave uniformly structure. in with respect to the are

licensing

argument like

Some

nouns

systematically

verbs

their

argument-taking

27 capacities, while others are quite different and in fact take no arguments at all (Alexiadou, 2001). Specifically, Grimshaw (1990) in Alexiadou (2001) claims that nouns

denoting complex events, like verbs, also have an argument structure, since they denote events breaking into aspectual subparts. On the other hand, nouns that denote simple

events do not have an argument structure (Alexiadou, 2011). In this of regard, nouns deverbals and verbs. are a hybrid of the have

properties

Deverbal

nouns

reference, but they tend to have generic reference rather than specific, markers, which and means have they often lack determiners, (Andersen,

plural

argument

structure

2000). The ability to refer is a typical nominal property, the most typical way being the anaphoric reference where an antecedent is involveda characteristic also shared by

deverbal nouns (Andersen, 2000). So, all in all, Andersen (2000) concludes, deverbal nouns share characteristics of both nouns and verbs

(Andersen, 2000). The most productive morphological types are the ones which are closest to the verb. The process nominals are closer to the verb than the result nominals. Arguments against Nominalization As mentioned before, nominalizations make your texts impersonal and authoritative. Hence, it is widely used in

28 the academic circles, by lawyers, bureaucrats and business writers. Nominalization, they think, makes them sound

intellectual and deep, and so they tend to use it a lot. However, some writers beg to differ. Some of them

think that overuse of nominalizations can actually do more harm than good. According to Helen Swords New York Times Article

Zombie Nouns (July 23, 2012), she calls nominalized words as zombie nouns because they cannibalize active verbs, suck the lifeblood from adjectives and substitute abstract entities for human beings (Sword, 2012). She adds that zombie nouns are at their worst when they gather in

jargon-generating packs and infect every noun, verb, and adjective in sight (Sword, 2012). They also impede clear communication, and send the students a dangerous message that people who use big words are smarter or at least appear to be than those who dont (Sword, 2012). All in all, Sword concludes, will a paragraph the heavily populated to by

nominalizations (Sword, 2012).

send

readers

straight

sleep

Brady Spangenbergs article in The Grammar Gang Blog (http://thegrammargang.blogspot.com) nominalizations (April 4, 2009) on points avoiding out to

nominalization as one major cause of clunkiness that

29 is, it seems as if the writer goes through the series of wordy gymnastics and still doesnt get his or her point across sentences (Spangenberg, feature many 2009). more Nominalizations helping make4 verbs,

prepositions,

and passive constructions, all of which tend to slow down your 2009). Jocelyn Sykoras article on nominalizations sentences and confuse your readers (Spangenberg,

(http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/student_acad/ctl/tutors/resou rces/writing_pamphlets/nominalizations.shtml) asserts that, while nominalizations are useful in some cases, problems arise when nominalizations and weak verbs begin to form patterns. These patterns result in clunky and unclear

sentences (Sykora, 2010). According article Words to Bridget that McKenna (and (2010) Words in her online Dont)

Move

that

(http://www.hypnosis101.com/wordpress/nlp/hypnoticlanguage/nominalizations/), nominalizations have a way of limiting us in our thinking. It is because once we have

defined something, we can sometimes find it difficult to re-define it. She cites as example love: as a noun it has the attributes of a thing, while as a process it now has duration and is subject to change (McKenna, 2010). In short, nominalization is freezing a process.

30 Dr. Kip Wheelers(2012) article calls nominalization a type of wordiness (Wheeler, 2012). He begins by saying beginning length, writers more have trouble developing have sufficient being

while

advanced

writers

trouble

concise. As young writers become more comfortable writing, they often develop bad habits such as what to a he calls of

grammatical

nominalization,

referring

type

wordiness in which both a noun and a verb is used when a verb alone is enough. Nominalization may also involve

phrases like there is or there are to begin sentences, or excessive use of to-be verbs, making the sentence weak (Wheeler, 2012). Joe Cheals(2008) article also states that the

conscious mind likes to work with things they are more solid, graspable and fixed. Nominalizations, according to Cheal, are the conscious minds attempt at stopping the world to have a look at it, to work with it and perhaps to feel a sense of control (Cheal, 2008). While nominalization is a useful thing, at other times it can be unhelpful and confusing, and one of its confusing aspects is that they are likely to have a wide degree of meanings. Thus, Cheal

enumerates the following cons in the use of nominalizations (Cheal, 2008): Misunderstanding due to vagueness

31 Collective term and therefore lacks specificity Creates an inaccurate representation of the world Creates a stuckness if treated as real Can create polarity tensions, dilemmas and paradox. The book Hot Text: Web Writing that Works (2010:209) state that continuous transforming of actions into things gets prose clotted. Readers struggle to figure out who does what, because the prose seems full of objects with only a few fuzzy actions. Nick Daws in his article dated May 31, 2010

(http://www.mywritingblog.com/2010/05/nominalization-andwhy-you-should.html) one common characteristic of

nominalization is that it makes a term more verbose. While it is not ungrammatical, high levels of nominalization can make any book or article sound flat and dull (Daws, 2010). All in all, these arguments one against thing: the that use use of of

nominalizations

agree

over

nominalization makes a work wordy and vague. Arguments for Nominalization Though some writers advise against nominalization,

there are some instances that nominalization can be useful, especially in presentation of facts. An article by David Crystal dated August 27, 2008 in his blog (http://david-crystal.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-

32 nominalisations.html) quotes a correspondent to be saying that there seems to be instances where nominalizations are useful, particularly in academic writing (Crystal, 2008). In fact, he says, nominalization has been present in

English since the beginning. What was actually being asked to avoid are the overuse of two processes: (a) long words formed with a suffix and (b) sentences where a noun phrase derives from a finite clause (Crystal, 2008). But overuse is not the same as use, Crystal argues, and no one can avoid using nominalizations. Nominalization allows us the option 2008). According to Barsalou, et.al. (2010) nominalizing a of being more abstract and impersonal (Crystal,

process may license a variety of (mistaken) assumptions about it: (1) a simple, well-defined representation

suffices to capture the processs content; (2) the process is relatively stable across time and contexts; (3) the

process is easy to manipulate and influence; and (4) the process enters into relatively simple causal relationships (Barsalou, et.al, 2010). Although nominalizing a process

distorts it, advantages may result as well, warranting the simplification. Nominalized processes may be relatively

easy to learn, store, and retrieve; they may be relatively easy to communicate; they may be well suited to various

33 types of reasoning. Because nominalized representations are relatively simple, compact, and stable, they are efficient cognitive units (Barsalou, et.al, 2010). While Jose Carillo (http://josecarillo.blogspot.com)

agrees that nominalization sometimes causes such nouns as those ending to bad in ion he the make English that so dense its sheer isnt

torture always

read, for

concedes health of

nominalization prose

English

(Carillo,

2011). In fact, he enlists five semantic situations where nominalizations can actually prove useful: 1. Nominalization to make abstract things more concrete and credible. This is actually what many academics and bureaucrats do to their prosebut to great excess. If done sparingly and with restraint, however, this form of nominalization can actually make abstract

statements more convincing. 2. Nominalization as a transitional device. By serving as a subject referring to an idea in a previous sentence, a nominalization can provide smooth transition. 3. Nominalization forceful to attenuate In making extremely extremely to harsh or

statements. it is

sensitive use a

statements,

often

prudent

nominalization instead of its more direct and vigorous verb form.

34 4. Nominalization to more clearly identify the object of its verb-form. For stronger emphasis, it is sometimes desirable to use a nominalization to clearly identify the object of the verb in the sentence. 5. Nominalization phrases. When to replace a awkward the to fact the that next

making

transition

sentence, the easy but lazy way is to use the phrase the fact that Nominalization of that phrase results in a better sounding sentence and a more elegant

transition. (Carillo, 2011) Carillo then concludes that since nominalization isnt all that bad for the prose, there should be no hesitation in using it when it is called for (Carillo, 2011). Although Joe Cheal, as mentioned earlier in this

paper, stated some disadvantages of nominalization, he also listed some advantages in using it. According to him, it appears that part of the human condition is the need to nominalize, to capture processes, and convert them into

things (Cheal, 2008). The following are the reasons why nominalization is also important: Convenient way to capture and label a process,

thereby giving the conscious mind a grasp of reality by providing points of reference.

35 It is an umbrella term to cover a range of

experiences. Creates a trans-derivational search which is useful

for trance work and artful vagueness. (Cheal, 2008) South Childrens Australias Department of Education and

Studies

(www.decd.sa.gov.au/eyreandwestern/.../Nominalisation_Power point....) also noted some reasons in the use of

nominalizations. One is that it helps to achieve a higher degree of abstraction and technicality. Another is that

nominalization is significant in constructing a distant and abstract world that can be reflected on. Lastly,

nominalization is one of the language choices that enables movement towards highly written texts

(www.decd.sa.gov.au/eyreandwestern/.../Nominalisation_Power point....). In conclusion, it is still safe to say that the use of nominalizations better and has certain to advantages as in long making as it prose isnt

easier

understand,

overused and abused. Related Studies Some related studies, mostly descriptive, have been

done on the topic of nominalization.

36 A paper by of Maria Lapata (2002) She discusses notes that the any

disambiguation

nominalization.

attempt to automatically interpret nominalizations needs to take into account imposed the by following: the (a) the selectional head;

constraints

nominalization

compound

(b) the fact that the relation of the modifier and the head noun can be ambiguous; be and (c) the fact by that these or the

constraints pragmatic

can forms

easily (Lapata,

overridden 2002).

contextual Moreover,

interpretation of nominalizations poses a further challenge for probabilistic approaches, since the argument relations between a head and its modifier are not readily available in the corpus (Lapata, 2002). Thus, treating the

interpretation task as a disambiguation problem, she recreated the missing distributional evidence by exploiting partial parsing, smoothing techniques, and contextual

information. First, Lapata selected a random sample of 1, 277

tokens, which were manually inspected and found out to have 796 nominalizations. Out of these, 596 were used as

training data for finding the optimal parameters and the remaining 200 as test data. These were given to two

graduate students who served as judges to decide whether modifiers are subject or object of a given nominalized

37 head. Given a page of guidelines but no training, they

were given the corpus sentence in which the nominalization occurred together with the previous and following sentence. Comparing the smoothing variants, they found out that verbargument pairs with low-frequency verbs introduce noise due to the errors inherent in the partial parser. They then proceeded to study task, and the and in influence explored of the with context on the of

interpretation context smoothing alone

contribution the

combination were

different Ripper

variants.

These

combined

using

(Cohen, 1996), a system that induces classification rules from a set of pre-classified examples. The experiments

revealed that data sparseness can be overcome by taking advantage of smoothing methods and surface contextual

information (Lapata, 2002). Friederike Moltmann (2006) in his paper argues that there is a fourth kind of nominalization which requires a quite different of treatment. While are standard that views in the mere

semantics

nominalizations

they

map

meanings into objects, that they refer to their implicit arguments, and that they introduce new objects, the fourth, Moltmann says, introduce new objects, but only partially characterize them (Moltmann, 2006). Such nominalizations generally refer to events or tropes (properties). This

38 fourth kind does not refer at all; rather, the process of nominalization would go along with rules for forming true or false sentences with the nominalization on the basis of true or false sentences involving the relevant base

expression. Moltmann (2006) then proceeds to compare trope (adjectival) and event (verbal) nominalizations, stating

the only way of connecting the semantics of event or trope nominalizations to that of the base expressions is on the basis of the notion of the truth maker (Moltmann, 2006). He concludes that by incorporating there are truth makers of into a

semantic

structure,

possibilities

compositional analysis of sentences involving truth makers (Moltmann, connect. Solveiga Suinskien (2010) discusses in her study 2006), thereby making nominalizations easy to

nominalization as a cohesive device in British newspaper editorials. She notes that the main purpose of editorials is to contribute affairs to and the as molding such, of public ought opinion to have on an

current

they

argumentative structure; thus, they need linguistic means to serve the factual evidence 2010). newspaper in as convincing as way a as

possible cohesive

(Suinskien, device of

Nominalization, language, is

text for

used

embedding as much information into a few words as possible.

39 To manipulate the reader, the central actions are often expressed in nominal form thus omitting the actor and

leaving the reader in doubt (Suinskien, 2010). Employing textual analysis, Suinskien collected

samples of editorials published from January 1, 2009 to December 1, 2009, from different social stratification of English newspapers: the up-market (aimed at the upper

middle-class readers), mid-market (aimed at lower middleclass and skilled working-class readers), and down-market (aimed at working class readers). The titles were first randomly selected and then nominalizations used in the

corpus to be investigated were chosen. The findings showed that since editorials are composed under rather strict space constraints, nominalization

allows a notion which is verbal in origin to be inserted into an idea unit like it is a noun (Suinskien, 2010). Consequently, written as a she adds, most or nominalizations can be realso verbs they

phrase the

clause. The from

Nominalizations of that

depersonalize disconnects

agent.

nominalizing the action

the

participant

performed by condensing that transitive relationship from the clause into a single, general noun (Suinskien, 2010). In conclusion, Suinskien states that the high

frequency of nominalizations in editorials is due to lack

40 of space or even may be of time. The style of writing editorials needs a certain device for talking about

abstract ideas. The precise lexical choice is a measure of information density (Suinskien, 2010). In an attempt to convince the readers that

nominalization is a most powerful device in English, Gao Wenyan (2012) made a comparative study in nominalization in medical paperd. Gao first asserts that medical writings are generally standardized in language and concentrated on

highly technical terms but can be difficult to understand due to its many forms and complexity. He suggests that

nominalization plays a crucial role in building the logical structure formality. For the study, Gao obtained 10 Discussion Sections of medical papers, and employed an analysis involving 3 steps: (1) identifying the frequency of nominalization; (2) of medical English papers and improving its

comparing the lexical density; and (3) analyzing thematic progression which contributes to the textual cohesion. The results of his study implied that there are two essential directions. One is that the results could serve as a

starting point for courses on genre analysis of medical papers with special emphasis on their grammatical metaphor in the form of nominalization which enhances the features

41 of scientific precision, conciseness and objectivity.

Second, an understanding of the functional role and textual consequences of grammatical metaphor is essential for a

full understanding of the meaning of any text (Gao, 2012). Janelle Cameron (2011) published a thesis on teaching nominalization to secondary ELD teachers. She states that nominalization can be a powerful skill for language

learning students to acquire as they attempt to comprehend content area texts at the secondary level (Cameron, 2011). A commonly held belief is that language learners only need language instruction through the intermediate level and are then ready for full participation in mainstream courses; however, teachers and administrators are often unaware of the linguistic demands of academic text of and also the area

language

proficiency

requirements

content

classrooms (Cameron, 2011). Rather than being thrust into mainstream classrooms once intermediate level proficiency is obtained, English language learners require advanced

language instruction specific to the academic content they study. content Knowing area at the the particular secondary linguistic level sets demands up the of a

first

pedagogical challenge, while knowing how to instruct those linguistic demands poses the next challenge for teachers (Cameron, 2011).

42 Selecting Cameron a focus the group of teachers of and students, by

demonstrated

relevance

nominalizations

recording the number of nominalizations found in randomly selected passages from the 7th and 8th grade mandated history curriculum. The findings showed that 38% of the sentence subjects in the selected text and 85% of all headings were nominalizations, and understanding proving the significance within of the recognizing text. Thus,

nominalizations

quoting Schleppegrell (2004), Cameron argues that a lack of understanding of these nominalizations limits students

comprehension of the entire text (Cameron, 2011), proving its importance. Even more surprising was that, the teachers themselves do not recognize nominalizations, nor know how to teach them, thus the need to instruct them first on how to instruct it to students (Cameron, 2011). With assess the these intitial findings, Cameron proceeds to

teacher-participants,

then

conducted

training

sessions on nominalizations. The implications became clear: if correlation between student comprehension and use of

nominalization could be shown, many more teachers might be interested enough in the concept to learn what

nominalization is and how to teach it (Cameron, 2011).

43 Local Studies While English there are no studies there on are nominalization several studies in on its English

conducted

locally,

Filipino,

particularly and

Tagalog, as

language, to

nominalization

structure

compared

conducted by foreign researchers. It is worth to note that these studies are somehow connected to the topic at hand. Daniel Kaufman (2008) in particular presented a study on exclamatives and temporal particularly two nominalizations on Tagalog. of In in his

Austronesian, paper, Kaufman

touching examines

functions

nominalization,

exclamatives and temporal adjuncts, as they are attested commonly throughout Austronesian languages (Kaufman, 2008). The question of identifying conservative nouns and verbs in

morphologically

Austronesian

languages

naturally looms large in any discussion of nominalization. In particular, Philippine verbs have been argued to possess many nominal properties, which in turn has been argued to be the result of older reanalysis of nominal categories into verbal ones (Kaufman,2008). For example, in the

following sentences, (a) employs the patient voice which corresponds with genitive case on the agent and nominative case on the patient, while (b) employs the actor voice

(Kaufman, 2008):

44 (a) S(in)unog ni Malaya ang bandila. Malaya burnt the flag. (lit. The flag was Malayas burnt thing.) (b) Nag-sunog si Malaya ng bandila. Malaya burnt a flag. (lit. Malaya was the burner of the flag.) Nominals, although by no means requiring

presuppositionality, have been argued to inherently possess referential properties either by virtue of their lexical category or due to their proto-typical functions in

discourse. Thus, Kaufman concludes, they are thus uniquely suited for anaphoric functions. Following this line of

thought, it can now be explained why Philippine nominals are interpreted specifically (i.e., as when-clauses or as rather than

hypotheticals

if-clauses)

indicating

simultaneous action (i.e. as-clauses) (Kaufman, 2008). Matthias typology of Gerner (2011) published in Asian in by stem. a study on the In

nominalization he is of the states

languages. Tagalog,

particular, nominalization reduplication 2011):

that

action prothetic (Gerner,

realized verbal

partial For example

mag-huli catch (to catch)

pag-huhuli catch (catching)

45 In conclusion, Gerner states that an extended typology will yield empirically testable hypotheses about the

connection between the nominalizations and other variables, and that nominalizers also make way for new functions and meanings.