A nominalization' is a verb (process word) which has been transformed into an abstract noun. It is like taking a snapshot of a moving object, subjectively the representation has less "movement", and seems like a "static" representation. That is, a dynamic process (or verb) is transformed into a static thing (or noun).

Examples of nominalization

Example 1:
- "The communication [from 'communicate'] in this company is poor."
- Challenge: "How could we communicate more effectively?"
Example 2:
- Client: "My decision will be made by tomorrow."
- Challenge: "How specifically will you decide?"
- When a verb is transformed into a abstract noun (decision is the nominalized form of decide) it is considered by the author of the model to become stagnant. The intention of responding with the verb form is to facilitate movement and have the respondent become aware of the process form of deciding.

Additional examples: applicability (from applicable)

The applicability of the meta model was noticeable.
How specifically was it applicable?

carelessness (from careless)

Her carelessness was apparent in the way she looked away.
How specifically was she careless?

difficulty (from difficult)

The difficulty of the test was a hurdle.
How specifically was it difficult?

failure (from fail)

It was a big failure.
How specifically did it fail?

intensity (from intense)

The intensity was overwhelming.
How intense was it?

investigation (from investigate)

The investigation was carried out thoroughly.
How specifically was it investigated?

reaction (from react)

My reaction was immediate.
How specifically did you react?

The wheelbarrow test

Note: there are 2 simple tests that can be used to determine if a word or expression is a nominalization:

the wheelbarrow test: if you can put it into a wheelbarrow, it is NOT a nominalization. E.g. A drink is a noun, but it is not a nominalization... as it is tangible, it can be put into a wheelbarrow and carried around. Quality control fails the wheelbarrow test and is a nominalization.
If the word continuous can be put in front of the noun and still make sense. E.g. improvement becomes continuous improvement, hence improvement is a nominalization. (The fact that continuous can be added indicates that there is a dynamic aspect to this static element).

These examples are used to show how to identify limiting use of language. When a verb is used instead, the mind of the user becomes more flexible in terms of seeing different points of view and looking for solutions to problems. Nominalisations are process words which have been frozen in time and have thus become nouns. In other words we take words which describe actions or processes and, through the process of nominalisation, we turn those actions or processes into things or objects which are frozen in an instant of time.

In some ways, efficiency being one example, nominalisations can be useful tools for communication between human beings, as complex aspects of our experience of the world can seemingly be expressed in a single word such as:-

Relationship – the process of two or more people relating to each other over time
Discussion – the process of two or more people discussing a particular subject
Negotiation - the process of extended communication between two or more parties with the intent of achieving agreement
Management – the process of managing something
Freedom – the process of being free
Confidence – the process of experiencing confident feelings in the mind and body

In other ways our use of nominalisation severely limits our ability to communicate the richness of our experience to other human beings by deleting useful information.

To explain more fully let’s examine the word relationship for a moment and consider more fully what the underlying Deep Structure meaning of that word might be. Firstly we’ll de-nominalise relationship and turn it back into the process of two people relating to each other. Think of a person in your life who you’ve known and been ‘relating’ to for a number of years i.e. a family member or a close friend.

Now, take a few moments to fully consider the sheer volume and diversity of experiences that you and this other person have shared with each other in the course of that process of relating to each other over those years and all the elements of those shared experiences such as:-

The many different things you have done/heard/seen/spoken about/imagined/planned/dreamed about together
The sheer volume, diversity and complexity of every interaction you have shared with each other
The ways in which your individual backgrounds and models of the world have impacted upon and shaped the ways in which you have related to each other over the full course of your ‘relationship’.

Now, take all of that vast expanse of shared human experience and cram it forcibly into a tiny, rigid box. Once you’ve done that, force the lid onto the box with a hastily attached label which reads simply Relationship. Finally, hand that box to a stranger.

Now – using only the single word label – Relationship – could the person you’ve handed that box to ever truly understand/appreciate the full meaning of that word? Not likely! The linguistic representation – the word Relationship – contains nothing of the underlying experience that is required to convey the true meaning. All of that experience is hidden from view inside the box behind the nominalisation/label of the word Relationship.

People communicate with each other using nominalisations all the time and in doing so their conscious thought processes are often not fully in contact with the underlying, ongoing processes which give meaning to those words. In other words, it’s easy to communicate using nominalisations without really thinking about what we’re saying and to completely miss the fact that we are talking about processes which are ongoing and which we can change if we wish to.

The presence of nominalisations in a person’s communication often indicates that, in their perception, they have no choice or control because the events concerned are already in the past i.e.:-

Our relationship just doesn’t work any more
There’s no communication here
His refusal to cooperate brought an end to our negotiation

Another interesting effect of nominalisation is that people are removed from the processes and instead are replaced with things to which responsibility can be assigned. We can rid ourselves of any responsibility by blaming the process. If we re-assign responsibility to the people involved in the processes the above examples could be written:-

The way we are relating to each other just doesn’t work any more
People are not communicating here
We had to stop negotiating because he is refusing to cooperate

Meta Model responses can be used to assist people in reconnecting the nominalisations present in their Surface Structures with the ongoing processes both in the present and over the course of their experience to date.

Examples of Meta Model responses appropriate for challenging a nominalisation and turning it back into a process (denominalisation) include:-

What specifically about the way you’re relating causes you to think this way?
What aspects of the way you’re relating do work?
How would you like to communicate?
Who’s not communicating what to whom?
In what way specifically is he refusing to cooperate?
Could the way you’re negotiating be changed to enable him to cooperate with the process?

In summary it is people, not processes, that are responsible for outcomes and people can change their behaviours and modify the processes until they get the outcomes they desire.