Nominalizations vs. Denominalizations: Do They Influence What Readers Recall?

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication Apr 1998

Nominalizations vs. Denominalizations: Do They Influence What Readers Recall?

Jan H. Spyridakis Seattle University ; Carol S. Isakson

Abstract

Technical writers and editors assume that readers are generally helped when nominalizations and the weak verbs that accompany them are replaced with the verb form of the nominalization. The study discussed here tests that assumption. Specifically, the study assessed the effect of nominalizations, nominalization imageability, and idea importance on readers' recall of technical prose. The results indicate that denominalized text is most effective in helping native speakers focus on more important information. Yet for non-native speakers, nominalized text may work quite well. Conclusions and recommendations for further study are offered.

Journal: Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Published: 1998-04-01
DOI: 10.2190/01hd-mhu1-qnx9-r3ye
Open Access: Closed
Topics: multimodality multilingual writers

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

Balling (2018)

No Effect of Writing Advice on Reading Comprehension

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Connatser (1999)

Last Rites for Readability Formulas in Technical Communication

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Cites in this index (4)

Shubert et al. (1995)

The Comprehensibility of Simplified English in Procedures

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Wenger et al. (1993)

Reduced Text Structure at Two Text Levels: Impacts on the Performance of Techni…

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Spyridakis (1989)

Signaling Effects: Increased Content Retention and New Answers—Part II

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Bostian et al. (1987)

Scientists: Can They Read What They Write?

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Also cites 25 works outside this index ↓

10.1177/107769908306000408

↗
10.1177/107769908406100330

↗
10.2466/pr0.1963.13.3.651

↗
10.1037/h0040440

↗
10.1080/19388077909557508

↗
10.1037/h0022472

↗
10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80095-7

↗
10.3758/BF03331360

↗
10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80097-4

↗
10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80086-5

↗
10.3758/BF03332526

↗
10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01469.x

↗
10.1080/14640747508400481

↗
10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80050-9

↗
10.1016/0010-0285(73)90036-4

↗
10.1037/0278-7393.5.5.496

↗
10.1109/IPCC.1995.554908

↗
10.1080/08941929509380918

↗
10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80003-2

↗
10.2307/747969

↗
10.1109/47.144871

↗
10.1680/istbu.1995.27871

↗
10.1037/0735-7036.109.4.416

↗
10.1109/47.557512

↗
10.1109/IPCC.1991.172728

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 8 View in citation network →