Nominalisation in history and social science writing_OLD VERSION

Comparing the two texts

Let’s compare the sample response from the previous page with the original snippet.

In each of these, highlight the nominal groups and verbal groups.

Most history books will tell you that, in the nineteenth century, workers in Europe began to have more choice because people started hiring and promoting each other for their skills and aptitude, instead of everyone being forced to do jobs based on what their families did, and because governments started to provide more and more public schools so that everyone had the opportunity to learn.

In the nineteenth century: yes the nineteenth century is a nominal group, but the word in puts it inside a prepositional phrase, so to be consistent with what we do in other lessons we won’t highlight it here.

The opportunity to learn: “to learn” is a verbal group, but it is acting as a qualifier for “the opportunity”, so we highlight the whole group as a nominal group.

Standard history texts will tell you that the nineteenth century saw the beginnings of a new era of choice for Europe’s workers, primarily due to the invention of meritocracy – rewarding people on the basis of their skills or aptitude – and the growth of public education.

The Wonderbox(2012)

Due to: you might wonder if this is a verbal group, but it’s not—it’s one of those weird standalone phrases in English that has a very precise meaning and usage. (If you’re confused, just think about whether or not you could use the word due as a verb in other sentences.)

The beginnings of a new era of choice for Europe’s workers: this is a big nominalisation! The main noun is “era”. Everything on either side of that is adding detail to that noun.

For Europe’s workers: this is a qualifier within a qualifier (era of choice for Europe’s workers) both of which relate to the noun “era”.

On the basis of their skills or aptitude: as with “in the nineteenth century” this is a prepositional phrase (because it begins with “on”) so again to be consistent with other lessons we won’t highlight it. But I wish we could highlight it because the phrase “the basis of their skills or aptitude” is a big nominalisation!

(In fact the whole phrase “rewarding people on the basis of their skills or aptitude” is grammatically ambiguous because it’s a fragment. You could argue the whole thing should be one big nominalisation, but we won’t go into that here.)

What do you see when you compare the conversational version with the written version?

Do you see how the written version has only a few verbal groups and nominal groups, and the nominal groups are quite dense? That’s because events are being nominalised and treated as things. 

Previous page