Action Verbs Good. Nominalizations Bad

What are nominalizations?

Nominalizations are the noun forms of action verbs, as seen Table 1.

Table 1: Sample action verbs and corresponding nouns (nominalizations)

Sample action verbs

Corresponding nouns

increase (v)

increase (n)

Why are they bad, and how do I fix them?

Nominalizations have multiple negative effects.

1. They make sentences less concise.
2. They increase the noun-to-verb ratio.
3. They make sentences difficult to understand.
4. They make reading tedious.

Nominalizations often force writers to add additional words to sentences. Changing nominalizations back to action verbs often decreases the number of words needed to communicate the idea, as seen here:

Example 1a, with nominalization: “The commencement of the ceremony will be at noon.”
Example 1b, with action verb: “The ceremony will commence at noon.”

Example 2a, with nominalization: “This example provides an illustration of the problems with nominalizations.”
Example 2b, with action verb: “This example illustrates problems with nominalizations.”

The revised versions also have lower noun-to-verb ratios. In example 1, the noun-to-verb ratio drops from 3:1 to 2:1. In example 2, the noun-to-verb ratio drops from 4:1 to 3:1. As a result, the revised sentences state their message in clear, concise, and interesting language.

Nominalizations characterize legalese, businessese, academese, and all other –ese types of writing. They characterize writing that is difficult to understand and tedious to read. As the number of nominalizations increases, the reader’s difficulty understanding also increases. Using action verbs solves these problems.

In the next two examples, the nominalizations are underlined. Each sample is followed by the number of words and the noun-to-verb ratio.

Table 2: Revising sentences with nominalizations and lowering the noun-to-verb ratio





1. An expansion in the utilization of pencils was the cause of the reduction in the utilization of red ink. (19 words)


1. People are using less red ink because they are using more pencils. (12 words)


2. The analysis process that was the requirement of the experimentation protocol is an indication of researchers’ lack of ability in data synthesis. (22 words)


2. The way the researchers analyzed the data indicates they do not know how to synthesize data. (16 words)


Upon reading the original versions of the two sentences above, the reader may rightly ask, “What is the writer trying to say?” The sentences do not communicate well because they have too many nominalizations. They have other problems, too. Both sentences use state-of-being verbs as the main verbs and not the meaningful action, and neither sentence uses the meaningful subject. They also require many words to communicate the message.

The revised versions are far superior. First, and most importantly, they are easy to understand. Second, they answer “Who did what to whom?” Third, they are concise, with seven and six fewer words, respectively. Fourth, they use action verbs as the main verbs. Overall, the revised versions demonstrate direct writing.

(Notice also that when I revised the second example, I was able to remove requirement of the experimentation protocol because it became self-explanatory.)

Are nominalizations ever ok?

Nominalizations are acceptable in two situations:

1. Providing common names, and
2. Ending main ideas.

First, nominalizations help communicate common titles and things.

Nominalizations like these do not make sentences difficult to understand, and they allow the writer to state ideas succinctly. For example, consultant is a noun form of the verb consult. However, consultant describes a common type of person or job, as in “The consultant advised us to sell our stocks.” If you were to revise this sentence to avoid consultant, you would need many more words to express your idea.

As another example, illustration is a noun form of illustrate, but when used to describe a drawing or a picture, it is acceptable, as in “The illustration shows how the parts are assembled.” If you were to replace illustration with image, for example, you would be replacing one noun for another, so the revision is no better than the original.

Second, nominalizations can provide a feeling of closure to a sentence.

One of the reasons nominalizations make reading tedious is they are “heavy” words. They force the reader to pause and consider the meaning, which quickly becomes mentally fatiguing. However, a nominalization at the end of the sentence gives the reader the sense that the idea is now complete. In very non-technical terms, they end a sentence with a “thud.” In this way, they help a sentence have more impact on the reader. This can be useful at the end of a paragraph or at the end of an important point or main idea. In the two examples that follow, the second example provides greater impact.

Example 3a, weak: “Fertilizer helps plants grow faster.”
Example 3b, strong: “Fertilizer accelerates growth.”

Thus, a nominalization may be acceptable if it

1. Makes the sentence more concise, or
2. Accents your main idea.

In all other cases, and to the extent possible, avoid nominalizations. Your writing will be more concise, more understandable, and more direct.

Free E-book to Improve Your Writing Skills

Writing strategies and instruction from
Precise Edit’s writing guides

  • 1 critical article from
    Precise Edit Training Manual
  • 8 days of instruction from
    300 Days of Better Writing
  • 5 top strategies from
    Bang! Writing with Impact
  • 2 essential word choices from
    Which Word Do I Use?
  • 1 major comma use from Zen Comma
  • 1 powerful chapter about main verbs from Concise Guide to Technical and Academic Writing

Get the free e-book (PDF) OR
Purchase the Kindle version ($0.99).


Filed under Writing

6 responses to “Action Verbs Good. Nominalizations Bad

  1. Andrea

    Hi, do you have any good resources for the concept of character (actor) not in subject?

  2. schillingklaus

    I love nominalisations in fiction, and none of your diatribes will ever result in an alteration of my preferences; ergo, I will proudly continue my utilisation of this perfect means of style, notwithstanding any fascist critique.

  3. Klaus Schilling

    I like nominalizations as a reader; ergo, I use them massively and religiously in my fiction; and none of your diatribes will ever be able to dissuade me therefrom.

  4. Pingback: How to Write for the Web: A Blogger’s Guide to Engaging Syntax

  5. Blake

    Schillingklaus: Using nominalisations, at times, impedes fluency and clarity, whilst adding words.
    But by all means, use whatever style you want. Just remember, however, that concision, the power of your writing, and clarity of point will largely affect your readers.
    (FYI, “clarity of point” is an example of where nominalisations can ‘at times’ be effective. Derived from the verb “clarity,” this nominalisation doesn’t hinder fluency nor overcomplicate my writing.

    But your example, “I will proudly continue my utilisation of this perfect means of style,” is unnecessarily complicated. “My utilisation of” is an example of using longer words to sound smart, just as “perfect means of style” is verbose.
    However, rewording this sentence creates a clear and easy-to-understand idea:
    “I will proudly continue to use this perfect style.” Simple and to the point, with no fluff.
    So, in your attempt to sound smart, you therefore sound dumb.

  6. Pingback: Minimize, Don't Nominalize: Effective Writing Isn't Affected, Part 3 - CHANGE IT UP EDITING

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s