Condenser, abstraire et formaliser : la nominalisation au service du style soutenu — grammaire et expression de Tle LVA
Évaluation complète de fin de chapitre, tout en niveau difficile. Travaille seul et sans aide, puis vérifie tes réponses avec le corrigé détaillé dépliable en bas de page.
Read the following text carefully, then answer the questions in English. Justify your answers with short quotations from the text.
Document — Adapted from an opinion column on public language, British press (2022).
Whenever an institution wishes to avoid blame, it reaches instinctively for the noun. A hospital does not say "we discharged the patient too early and he died"; it announces "a regrettable failure in the discharge process". A government does not admit "we cut the budget and waiting lists exploded"; it refers to "a reduction in expenditure" followed by "an increase in waiting times". In each case, a living action with a clear author has been frozen into an abstract noun, and the author has quietly disappeared.
This is the politics of nominalisation. By turning verbs into nouns, writers achieve two things at once: a remarkable density of information, and the deletion of responsibility. The sentence "mistakes were made" remains the classic example. Grammatically, it is impeccable; morally, it is evasive, for nobody made anything. The agent has been erased, and with it any sense of accountability.
It would be wrong, however, to condemn nominalisation outright. The same device that conceals can also clarify. Scientific writing relies on abstraction to compress complex processes into manageable terms, and the objectivity it produces is genuinely useful. The problem is not the tool but its abuse. A reader's best defence, therefore, is awareness: the ability to translate a comfortable noun back into the uncomfortable verb it conceals, and to ask the simple question that every abstract phrase tries to suppress — who, exactly, did this?
Answer in English, reusing the precise metalanguage of the chapter (abstract noun, agent, passive voice, register…).
Choose ONE of the two subjects and write 150–180 words in English. Use a sustained register: at least THREE nominalisations, ONE impersonal structure (It is... / There is...) and TWO formal connectors. Underline these features in your text.
Exercice 1 — Compréhension de l'écrit
Éléments attendus (compréhension fine + citations).
1. (2 pts) Institutions use nouns in order to escape blame / responsibility: «Whenever an institution wishes to avoid blame, it reaches instinctively for the noun». The student should quote one of the examples where a real action is hidden behind an abstract noun, e.g. «a regrettable failure in the discharge process» (instead of admitting the hospital discharged a patient too early) or «a reduction in expenditure» / «an increase in waiting times». (1 pt pour l'idée d'éviter le blâme, 1 pt pour une citation pertinente.)
2. (2 pts) The two effects are: (a) information density — nominalisation compresses a whole action into a single, dense abstract noun; and (b) agent deletion / the erasure of responsibility — by removing the verb, the writer also removes the person who acted, so accountability disappears («the deletion of responsibility», «The agent has been erased»). (1 pt par effet correctement reformulé.)
3. (2 pts) No — his position is nuanced. He refuses to condemn it «outright» because the same device can also clarify, especially in scientific writing where abstraction usefully compresses complex processes and produces objectivity. The key summarising sentence is: «The problem is not the tool but its abuse.» (1 pt pour la nuance / pas une condamnation totale, 1 pt pour la citation 'The problem is not the tool but its abuse'.)
Exercice 2 — Analyse de la langue dans le texte
1. (2,5 pts — 0,5 pt par paire correcte) Five among: failure (← to fail), discharge (← to discharge), reduction (← to reduce), increase (← to increase), deletion (← to delete), density (← dense, adj.), responsibility (← responsible, adj.), abstraction (← to abstract / abstract), objectivity (← objective, adj.), awareness (← aware, adj.), defence (← to defend). Toute paire base → nom correctement justifiée est valorisée.
2. (1,5 pts) Two combined mechanisms. First, the clause uses the passive voice (were made), which allows the speaker to omit the by + agent phrase, so the doer is never named. Second, mistakes is an abstract noun standing in subject position in place of any human author. The result is an agentless, impersonal statement: grammatically complete yet morally evasive, since «nobody made anything». (Attendu : mention de la voix passive + de l'effacement de l'agent / nom abstrait sans auteur.)
Exercice 3 — Expression écrite (au choix)
Attendus communs : longueur respectée (150–180 mots), anglais correct, registre soutenu effectivement tenu, présence et soulignement d'au moins 3 nominalisations, d'1 tournure impersonnelle et de 2 connecteurs soutenus (however, moreover, nevertheless, therefore, whereas…), point de vue clair appuyé sur des exemples. Barème indicatif : richesse et correction de la langue 4 pts · pertinence des arguments et exemples 3 pts · maîtrise effective du registre soutenu et des outils demandés (nominalisation, impersonnel, connecteurs) 3 pts.
Exemple de production attendue — Subject A (≈170 mots, niveau 18-20/20) :
It is widely acknowledged that the language of power often serves to conceal its authors. Politicians rarely admit a personal failure; instead, they announce a reduction in services or an increase in delays, as though these phenomena had no author at all. Moreover, the deletion of the agent through the passive voice — the notorious "mistakes were made" — transforms a deliberate decision into an apparently natural event. Business communication follows the same logic: a company speaks of "a restructuring" rather than admitting that managers dismissed hundreds of workers. However, I would not argue that abstraction is dishonest in itself. In scientific or legal writing, the same nominalisation usefully compresses complex ideas and lends them objectivity. The real danger lies in its abuse. Therefore, the citizen's best protection is critical awareness: we must learn to translate every comfortable noun back into the uncomfortable verb it hides, and to ask who, precisely, has acted.
Exemple — Subject B (≈160 mots) :
Dear colleagues, a word of caution about style. It is tempting to fill your articles with abstract nouns, because they sound authoritative and dense. Nevertheless, remember that every nominalisation can quietly erase a human author. When a government's "reduction in expenditure" is really a deliberate decision to cut hospital budgets, our duty is to restore the verb and the agent: who decided, and why? Admittedly, abstraction is not always dishonest. A clear summary of a scientific process legitimately uses nouns to compress complexity, and the resulting objectivity serves the reader. The problem is not the tool but its abuse. Therefore, before you publish, reread each sentence and ask whether a comfortable noun is hiding an uncomfortable truth. Our task is not to flatter the powerful with vague phrases, but to translate their evasions back into plain, accountable language. That, ultimately, is what good journalism owes the public.
Cours particuliers de anglais (lva) à Marseille, en présentiel ou à distance — un prof qui s'adapte à ton rythme et reprend ce qui coince.