4 ms·

I’ve always seen recommendations to avoid passive voice in writing. However, when I encounter passive voice it doesn’t bother me. It also is one of my more freq

by cebert 3y ago

I’ve always seen recommendations to avoid passive voice in writing. However, when I encounter passive voice it doesn’t bother me. It also is one of my more frequent writing mistakes. Is this still considered bad practice?

thfuran 3y ago
As a general rule, yes.
creata 3y ago
Yes. Some people (especially when they're trying to sound formal or impartial) use the passive voice way too much.
PakG1 3y ago
The interesting question is if passive voice is so bad, how did it come about in the English language and why did it survive? That directly contradicts a lot of this advice. Though I try to use primarily active voice because it helps me save on word/page count when I'm trying to submit papers to conferences.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  Passive voice in itself is benign. It provides flexibility, and it lets you emphasize the target of an action, or the action itself over the do-er, if that fits your intent. Advice to avoid passive voice comes from a variety of reasons, but perhaps the most charitable (and I think useful) view would be: * In technical writing, you might have pick up passive voice because of misguided advice to use avoid "I" and "we". This naturally leads you to using passive voice all over the place. This makes the writing "seem more objective", but is really just the veneer of objectivity. And in some ways is the polar opposite of the advice to always avoid passive voice. English has both voices - use them both. If nothing else (and all other things were equal), active voice tends to be more concise - as you have noted - which is a true benefit for technical writing. * Passive voice is one of tools employed when weaseling or obfuscating (see the infamous "mistakes were made"). Advice to avoid the passive voice is either nudging you to either... just be more honest (don't weasel!), or to be more clever in your weaseling (because everyone knows the trick...) * Because use of passive voice in more mundane/banal communication is so common (or seemingly so common), there was a perception that people were just defaulting in the passive because that's what government officials, or companies or whatever talked like. And so the advice was pushback. Reminding you that you don't have to speak or write like a prepared government speech or press release.
- euroderf 3y ago
  Do you find yourself having to reply to difficult questions about an unnecessary war in the Middle East ? Try this: "Mistakes were made."
sacado2 3y ago
Passive voice makes sense when the topic of interest isn't the subject. Look at those headlines about Kennedy's death: https://www.manisteenews.com/news/slideshow/10-front-pages-from-JFK-s-assassination-229099.php https://www.manisteenews.com/news/slideshow/10-front-pages-f... Most of these headlines are passive, because the topic of interest isn't the (unknown) murderer, or the bullets themselves, but the victim. "Kennedy assassinated, Connally seriously wounded by shots" is way stronger than "somebody assassinated Kennedy, shots seriously wounded Connally". Ditto with "Kennedy to be buried in Arlington", which is way better than "a person will bury Kennedy in Arlington".
didntcheck 3y ago
It's not a mistake or bad practice at all. I really don't understand the hate for passive voice in style guides (particularly American ones, IME). It's like saying "palm muting is the first sin of guitar playing". No, it's a valid aesthetic choice that everyone will have a different subjective opinion on in different contexts. There are also many contexts when the subject of the verb is of little importance, so passive voice is the more obvious choice The one exception is writing where accessibility is key. Apparently there is objective evidence that EAL and lower-ability native speakers may find it confusing to parse, but if you're instead writing "to entertain" (in a very broad sense), or for a high-ability audience, this likely is not relevant The other justifications like "active voice strikes the object" just sound like standard bad linguistics and getting hung up on the name, rather than any valid critique As for "it's used to shirk responsibility" ("mistakes were made") - that's plenty easy to do in active voice ("experts say x"). Shiftiness is a function of semantic content (or lack thereof) not grammar, and people generally aren't stupid enough to not notice you dodging just because you did it in passive
- thfuran 3y ago
  >people generally aren't stupid enough to not notice you dodging just because you did it in passive But if you write in passive voice for no particular reason, they may think you are when you weren't trying to.

by cebert 3y ago

thfuran 3y ago

As a general rule, yes.

creata 3y ago

Yes. Some people (especially when they're trying to sound formal or impartial) use the passive voice way too much.

PakG1 3y ago

The interesting question is if passive voice is so bad, how did it come about in the English language and why did it survive? That directly contradicts a lot of this advice. Though I try to use primarily active voice because it helps me save on word/page count when I'm trying to submit papers to conferences.

icegreentea2 3y ago
Passive voice in itself is benign. It provides flexibility, and it lets you emphasize the target of an action, or the action itself over the do-er, if that fits your intent. Advice to avoid passive voice comes from a variety of reasons, but perhaps the most charitable (and I think useful) view would be: * In technical writing, you might have pick up passive voice because of misguided advice to use avoid "I" and "we". This naturally leads you to using passive voice all over the place. This makes the writing "seem more objective", but is really just the veneer of objectivity. And in some ways is the polar opposite of the advice to always avoid passive voice. English has both voices - use them both. If nothing else (and all other things were equal), active voice tends to be more concise - as you have noted - which is a true benefit for technical writing. * Passive voice is one of tools employed when weaseling or obfuscating (see the infamous "mistakes were made"). Advice to avoid the passive voice is either nudging you to either... just be more honest (don't weasel!), or to be more clever in your weaseling (because everyone knows the trick...) * Because use of passive voice in more mundane/banal communication is so common (or seemingly so common), there was a perception that people were just defaulting in the passive because that's what government officials, or companies or whatever talked like. And so the advice was pushback. Reminding you that you don't have to speak or write like a prepared government speech or press release.
euroderf 3y ago
Do you find yourself having to reply to difficult questions about an unnecessary war in the Middle East ? Try this: "Mistakes were made."

sacado2 3y ago

Passive voice makes sense when the topic of interest isn't the subject. Look at those headlines about Kennedy's death: https://www.manisteenews.com/news/slideshow/10-front-pages-from-JFK-s-assassination-229099.php https://www.manisteenews.com/news/slideshow/10-front-pages-f... Most of these headlines are passive, because the topic of interest isn't the (unknown) murderer, or the bullets themselves, but the victim. "Kennedy assassinated, Connally seriously wounded by shots" is way stronger than "somebody assassinated Kennedy, shots seriously wounded Connally". Ditto with "Kennedy to be buried in Arlington", which is way better than "a person will bury Kennedy in Arlington".

didntcheck 3y ago

It's not a mistake or bad practice at all. I really don't understand the hate for passive voice in style guides (particularly American ones, IME). It's like saying "palm muting is the first sin of guitar playing". No, it's a valid aesthetic choice that everyone will have a different subjective opinion on in different contexts. There are also many contexts when the subject of the verb is of little importance, so passive voice is the more obvious choice The one exception is writing where accessibility is key. Apparently there is objective evidence that EAL and lower-ability native speakers may find it confusing to parse, but if you're instead writing "to entertain" (in a very broad sense), or for a high-ability audience, this likely is not relevant The other justifications like "active voice strikes the object" just sound like standard bad linguistics and getting hung up on the name, rather than any valid critique As for "it's used to shirk responsibility" ("mistakes were made") - that's plenty easy to do in active voice ("experts say x"). Shiftiness is a function of semantic content (or lack thereof) not grammar, and people generally aren't stupid enough to not notice you dodging just because you did it in passive

thfuran 3y ago
>people generally aren't stupid enough to not notice you dodging just because you did it in passive But if you write in passive voice for no particular reason, they may think you are when you weren't trying to.