Nominalization Competence Of English-major Postgraduates

The present study is motivated by the following major factors:(1) despite a large quantity of discussions about nominalization, little attention has been paid to the nominalization competence based on the language output of comparatively advanced EFL learners;(2) limitations are not rare of the few existing studies in this field due to the deficiencies in data collection, coding and analysis. Our observations of relevant literature show the differences between the real statistical occurrences of nominalization with those based on the defining criteria;(3) mere focus on the occurrences of nominalization does not suffice to provide a holistic understanding of a language user’s nominalization competence unless attention is also paid to non-nominalization such as verbalization and adjectivalization in concrete context; and (4) findings of the few existing studies reveal the gap between EFL learners’ writings and the scientific/academic norms demanding technicality and authorititativeness achieved mainly by nominalization. This encourages more attention to the gap and possible solutions to their rather low nominalization competence.A rough knowledge of grammatical metaphor combined with a brief summary of diachronic language competence development results in the key term to be discussed in this paper---’nominalization competence’, attached to language competence and mainly composed of condensing/packaging competence, balancing competence, adapting competence and nominalization awareness.The stated objective of the present study is to examine nominalization competence represented not only in terminal, repeatedly-modified MA theses in the past decade, but also in procedural, more natural writing drafts like regular writings and term papers. Specifically, three questions are raised:(1) What types of nominalization and non-nominal forms are employed in these master theses and regular waitings respectively? And what do they mean to the nominalization competence?(2) What is the relationship between the terminal papers and procedural writing drafts? Are they in accord with each other or are they different?(3) What is/are the cause(s) of Chinese EFL learners’less efficiency in using nominalizations?To answer these three questions, an investigation was conducted with MA papers randomly chosen from CNKI as the basic data, followed by a statistical analysis of nominalization and non-nominalization in the Abstract and the Conclusion parts with the aid of a free software antonc3.2.2; supplementary to the analysis of these terminal, repeatedly-modified papers is a rough analysis of some procedural, more natural writing drafts of English-major MA candidates, mainly term papers and writing assignments by foreign teachers. Apart from these, a survey is conducted, with a questionnaire, to test MA candidates’nominalization awareness.Statistics show that:(1) these advanced EFL learners use different types of nominalization, mainly derived nominals and gerundive nominals;(2) to a large extent, they depend more on non-nominal forms than on nominal ones in sentential and textual structuring, especially verbalization and adjectivalization, making their papers less condensed and objective;(3) they tend to embed nominalization within a prepositional phrase, or a nominal clause or a relative clause. This shows their ability of reasoning within a clause leaves much room for improvement;(4) generally, nominalization awareness, adapting efforts and nominalization competence are roughly in proportion.The present study makes sense in modifying previous research methodology and in drawing more attention of language teachers and learners to the development of nominalization competence.