0 INTRODUCTION

7. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
conditions noted by Quirk et al. (1985: 321-326) as well as by the principles of end-focus
and end-weight (Quirk et al. 1985: 323; Taylor 1994a, b).
The main aim of this section was to emphasise that the dependents of
nominalizations have a parallel role to arguments in sentences, but that the number of
arguments appearing in nominalizations is usually considerably lower than in their nonnominalized
counterparts, the process of nominalization usually implying a valency
reduction. This assertion was subsequently tested empirically in Chapter 6.
Chapter 4 depicted the world of science in the EModE period and how scientific
progress might have had an impact on the evolution of the English language, particularly
in the use and frequency of nominalizations. Hence, Section 4.1 dealt with the rhetoric of
science, and scientific texts seen as objects with intrinsic aesthetic value, used as a means
of persuading authors’ fellow scientists of their observations, arguments or theories.
Scientific writing was described as a heterogeneous genre, but its general features were
nevertheless listed, paying special attention to those related to the use of nominalizations.
It was claimed that the use of nominalizations helped to achieve the objectivity and
impersonality required in scientific texts as well as to describe actions that took place in
the scientific experiments (cf. Section 4.1.1). Hence, nominalizations are useful devices for
the redistribution of information in a clause and to help in the “step by step” description of
scientific processes. They are also useful as cohesive devices. Section 4.1.2 discussed
various other factors that might have favoured the use of nominalizations in Early Modern
scientific English. In a period when many new words were required to express the new and
constantly evolving ideas of science, nominalizations were of use because of their
232