Introduction
Languages vary, just as they share similarities. There are numerous languages spoken around the globe. These languages vary in speed of their pronunciation, the emphasis put on specific words, the tone used and many other characteristics.
However, Heyvaert (2003) observes that these languages also share a great deal in their morphological structure. Depending on various factors, the similarities or differences may be more evidence or otherwise.
Nominalization refers to the process of turning verbs or adjectives into nouns. It also includes the process of turning a verb or an adjective into a noun phrase. Nominalization is very popular among those who have a mastery of a given language (Giannakidou & Rathert, 2009).
Although some languages do not allow for much freedom when nominalizing the verbs or adjectives into noun, other have much freedom in formation of nouns. The European languages are closely connected in structure. The need to form nouns from verbs may arise out of the need to create a clearer picture of what is being passed across.
As Tamm (1993) observes, some languages are limited in vocabulary. There are no sufficient words that could be used to express certain emotions, ideas or general information using the existing vocabulary. Pundits have developed the habit of forming nouns out of the verbs or adjectives.
As Rathert & Alexiadou (2010) says, the use of adjectives or verbs to form nouns may become inevitable in some languages because of this limitation in vocabulary.
According to Genetti (2007), caution should be taken when using nominalization as a way of forming nouns. This is so because at times the message risks being misinterpreted, or may exhibit, largely, some ambiguity.
In some cases, Foong, Wrona, & Hårsta (2011) observes that nominalization is always as a result of what is commonly used within a given society. For this reason therefore, the nominalized word may mean one thing in one community, and a different thing in another community. In some communities, it may lack meaning completely.
Discussion
Nominalization may be very useful, especially in spoken language. There are various occasion that may require nominalization. Heyvaert (2003) says that language should be flexible enough to accommodate twisting of words to bring different meanings. The following is the main reason that may warrant nominalization of words.
New Phenomena or Items
There are occasion where some occurrences were not commonly practiced among a given society. Due to globalization, such occurrences are introduced to the society that never knew it before. For this reason, a word would need to be found that would be a representative of the new phenomena.
For example, among the Latgalian of Eastern Europe, kissing was not common. However, the act of bringing the lips into contact with the another could be described using a verb (Tamm, 2003). This process was called nyotho (which literally translates as lick). In a sentence, the verb would be used as such, John nyotho Jane. (John is kissing Jane). (Tamm, 2003).
This verb nyotho was therefore transformed into noun nyotho. Tamm (2003) observes that care should be taken when pronouncing this word. Although it may appear as if the word has not changed from its verb form, it is the spelling that has remained the same.
The pronunciation of this word is very different. In order to be in a position to determine whether this word is used as a verb or as a noun, it would require one to get the context of the word.
Consider the two sentences below.
- John nyotho Jane (John kissed Jane)
- John nomiyo Jane nyotho. (John gave Jane a kiss). (Tamm, 2003).
The two sentences have used the word both as a noun and as a verb. This closely relates to the usage of the word in an English speech. This relationship is as shown below:
- Adwani nyotho (Tamm, 2003).
- Kiss me.
The above two sentences have used the words in bold as a verb. The words can be changed into nouns, as is the case below.
- Mi ya nena nyotho
- I need a kiss
The two word have now been nominalized into nouns. Care should be taken in pronunciation of the word as this is what would bring the difference in meaning. When pronouncing the word kiss as a verb, the pitch of the voice should be flat. However, when it is used as a noun the pitch of the voice is raised up a bit. The same case would apply when pronouncing the word nyotho.
When using the word as a verb (which is its original form), the tone of the voice would be flat. However, when used as a noun, the tone of the voice is raised in order to bring about the differentiation. Tamm (2003) says that nominalized words should be given a proper tone of voice, otherwise it may either bring ambiguity or misinterpretation. The same word may mean different things when given different pronunciation.
Emergence of new items in the society may also bring about the need to nominalize some verbs or adjectives. According to Genetti (2007), cars had never been seen among the Vurjaba in East Asia.
When they saw the fast car, they were fascinated by the way it was moving and the fact that it would have people inside it without killing them. They therefore a called the car ramuoch ( the swallower). This was taken from the word muony (swallow). In a sentence, it would be as follows:
1. Omuonyo maembena (He swallowed my mango) (Genetti, 2007).
In this case, the word is used as a verb. The sentence below uses the word in its nominalized form:
2. Ramuony kalo (The car is passing) (Genetti, 2007).
This scholar also calls for caution when using this word. The above two sentences have no close connection at all. A car is not connected in any way with a person swallowing another’s mango. However, because those who named the car gave emphasis to the fact that it would ‘swallow’ people inside it, the normalization was based on this context.
A person who could be knowing the language and do not realize the context under which a car was named in this language may fail to know the real meaning of the word. Heyvaert (2003) asserts that this is the main challenge of nominalized words. They do not have a universal meaning to those who have understanding of the word.
According to Giannakidou and Rathert (2009), this phenomena of naming an object because of the associated verb can result in a scenario where a given object has more than one name. for this reason, the nominalized word may lack meaning to a section of the society that speak one language because they might have used a different form of verb to develop a name for the object.
This author reports that a section of the Vurjaba has a different name for the car. They call a car as rang’uech. They used adjective, other than noun to develop a name for a car which, to them was a strange and fascinating object that was not in existence before.
The word rang’uech is taken from the word ng’uech (speed). Ranguech would literally translate to ‘the speedy’. The above sentence would therefore be as follows: Rang’uech kalo. (The car is passing). (Genetti, 2007).
The two sentences compare closely in structure. A closer look at the two nouns reveals a similar morphological structure. It is easy to identify the fact that the two words were developed from the same language.
- Rang’uech
- Ramuony
Both nouns are developed by adding the prefix Ra to the adjective and the noun respectively.
As Rathert and Alexiadou (2010) observes, such words may be phased out of existence as time goes by or due to integration. Because the word was developed due to lack of appropriate word that would be used for a certain process or item, integration may cause a change in this.
The integration may be within the community or out of the community. It can take place within the community when different sections of the community encountered the phenomenon or were exposed to the object at different times. as such, when integration of the community takes place from within, the most dominant section may have their nominalized word carrying the day.
As such, other words that might have been used to name the object in that particular language may disappear. The integration may also take place when the community encounters another community. In this case, the dominant community, or the community that appears to be having a better name for the object may carry the day.
There are a number of approaches to nominalization of verbs and adjectives to nouns. In English, nominalization has been very popular. As Tamm (2003) assets, formation of a noun out of a verb is the easiest way of naming objects, ideas or processes whose meaning seem not to be clear.
Pundits have found it necessary to form noun out of the existing verbs or adjectives to make clear the meaning, especially where there appears to be ambiguity in the existing name.
The nominalization can take different approaches. the first approach would be to retain the verb in its original spelling. In such cases, it tone of the voice when pronouncing the word would be the only way to determine whether the word is used as a verb or a noun. The two sentences below expresses this.
- He swore that he would murder her. (verb)
- This is a murder case (noun)
Another approach through which a verb or an adjective can be nominalized is by adding a prefix to the main word. The examples below illustrate this.
- e-learning is very popular
- the announcement was made through web-cast
- the pedicure she used made her attractive
The above sentences demonstrates how nouns could be developed from verbs. Giannakidou and Rathert (2009) note that the nominalized word may have a completely different meaning from the verb used in its formation, or the meaning may have a close relation. In the above examples, the verb learning has been given the prefix e-, which gives it a another meaning.
E-learning involves using technological inventions like internet to facilitate learning. Talking about learning would therefore have a different meaning from just talking about learning in general. The noun formed therefore is more specific as to which type of learning is being talked about. The same case applies in the second sentence.
There are various forms of broad cast, but the one being talked about in this case is the web based. The last sentence has assumed a different meaning from the verb. The verb cure applies to something that is not of good health. however, by adding the prefix pedi- gives it a completely different meaning. Pedicure is a noun meaning to beautify the nails.
Nominalization can also be formed by using suffix at the end of a verb or adjective.
Nominalization Strategy in the Asian Languages
There are numerous languages in the larger Asia. However, some of the most prominent languages include Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Iranian, Sino-Tibetan, Papuan and Austronesian languages. They differ in their grammaticalization pathways (Genetti, 2007). Because of this, the larger Asia has a range of robust nominalization strategies.
Although effort has been made to ensure that as many of the Asian languages are included as is possible, there are still many others that have not been given the attention required. These languages can be grouped together and analyzed as a single family to assist in cross-linguistic comparison the entire phyla.
Once the phylum is identified, which in this case is the Asian languages, then they would be differentiated as per their varying characteristics.
Foong, Wrona, and Hårsta (2011) notes that some nominalization may be ambiguous. He gives an example of a Tibeto-Burman nominalization
Maam thuu phaa waa muu n-njaa
This sentence may be interpreted in a number of ways. The following are some of the possible interpretation from this statement.
- There is no incident of rice pounding.
- The machine for pounding rice is not here.
The above two sentences are correct interpretation of the above sentence. It would therefore be challenging to determine the intended meaning, unless one grasps the context under which the statement is made.
The nominalization in this case is made out of two words, phaa waa, which translates to pounding and rice, a verb and a noun. Depending on the context under which the sentence is constructed, it may assume different meaning.
The scholars argue that lexical nominalization came into existence before clausal nominalization. This author notes that a given nominalizer may mean different things in different languages. For example, pa is a very common lexical nominalizer among the Tibeto-Burman and the Limbu.
When used in the in Tibeto-Burman, the word pa would have the meaning of father. However, when used in Limbu, it is considered as a general nominalizer which can be used to make other nominal. In this case, the word would appear in a sentence as follows
Ke-sep-pa. (he who kills) (Foong, Wrona, & Hårsta 2011)
The above clause is a noun. Foong, Wrona, and Hårsta (2011) observe that some languages form their nominalization in form of a clause. He who kills is a murderer. But to the Limbu of Asia, this is best expressed in a phrase ke-sep-pa. the same language has a name to the one who is dying. They call such a person ke-si-ba. In English, this would also take the form of a clause, a dying person. The two clauses, ke-sep-pa and ke-si-ba are closely related in structure and to the person who do not understand this language, it is easier to realize that the clauses are taken from the same language and are closely related.
The clausal name for the person who is dying (ke-si-ba) reveals something very important among various communities across the world. Death is something that is not only feared but also loathed. for this reason, many languages lack one word, in its original form, that would express a person in such a condition.
This is also shown in the Lithuanian language. They call a person who is dying anayeelekea kufa (He who is approaching death). Many other Asian languages use clauses to name a person in such a condition.
The use of clauses has also been found to be appropriate when naming items or people as per their striking features. In Dolakha Newar, the following word is very common He’ga’-u sona. (flower that is red). (Heyvaert, 2003)
In English, there is no single word that would name such a flower. It is not just a flower, but one which has been qualified as being red. The best way this flower can be named would be ‘red flower’, which is still a clause. The same is the case with Magar language. They use the following clause, Des-ca. (the fat man). (Rathert, M. & Alexiadou, 2010).
We are interested in a specific man who is fat, not any other. To name such a person, a clausal nominalization is used with the adjectives desired in it.
Conclusion
Many languages have different morphological structure. In a given language, there may arise the need to form a noun from the existing verbs or adjectives. The process of forming a noun from adjectives or verbs is what is referred to as nominalization.
Different languages have different approaches when it comes to nominalization of words. Languages that are closely related together would always have a closer nominalization of words. The European languages have a very close relationship in structure.
For this reason, their nominalization process is closely related. There vast languages in Asia. Some of the dominant languages in this region include Chinese, Japanese, Korean among other languages. These languages have different ways through which nominalization can take place.
There are a number of reason it might be necessary to nominalize verbs or adjectives to make to make nouns. One reason that comes out strongly is that in some languages, there is lack of enough vocabulary to explain certain phenomena.
In this case, such a phenomena. In other cases, this may be caused by the need to enrich the language. There are many other reasons that may make it necessary to nominalize verbs. Care should always be taken when nominalizing words and when interpreting nominalized words.
When nominalizing verbs or adjectives, ambiguity should be avoided as much as possible. The meaning of the word should come out with much clarity. To the user of a nominalized word, it is important that meaning is understood, especially under the context in which it was develop. When used appropriately, nominalization is very useful to a given language because they enrich the vocabulary.
References
Foong, H. Y., Wrona, J., & Hårsta, K. (2011). Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Genetti, C. (2007). Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Giannakidou, A. & Rathert, M. (2009).Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heyvaert, L. (2003). A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rathert, M. & Alexiadou, A. (2010).The Semantics of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Tamm, M. (1993). Nominalizations. New York: Routledge.