In this article, the author replies to the comments made by Van Dijk, Fairclough and Martin on 'The Language of Critical Discourse Analysis'. The author also discusses at greater length the background to his concerns with current styles of academic writing. The author suggests that the problems with 'nominalization' and 'passivization' are wider than particular cases of abuse as Van Dijk suggests. The author discusses how analysts typically use 'nominalization' imprecisely, employing this same word to denote linguistic entities as well as processes of very different kinds. In replying to Fairclough, the author also points out that some linguists use 'nominalization' to refer to supposed linguistic 'processes' which are not, in fact, processes at all. In consequence, the use of technical terminology, far from leading to greater precision, has led to imprecision and to analysts avoiding basic issues. The author argues that it is important to understand what speakers/writers do with language. Technical nominals, which turn actions into 'things', are often poorly equipped for this task, especially when analysts use technical nouns in place of examining precisely what sorts of actions speakers/writers are performing. The author discusses why the current economic conditions of academic life encourage jargon-filled, technical writing and why, for ideological reasons, academics should resist the pressure to use heavy, nominal-based jargon.