|
Post by Vadim on Jun 18, 2008 19:20:23 GMT
What's the feeling on the "excessive" (to quote my [African] supervisor) use of passive voice? And is the "Flesch reading statistics etc. in MS Word, useful at all?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 18, 2008 20:25:47 GMT
>What's the feeling on the "excessive" (to quote my [African] supervisor) use of passive voice?<There's no such thing as "excessive use"! But there is, of course, "inappropriate use". And without passive voice how would that past-president Reagon have been able to get away with the famous, "Mistakes were made"! (Now, big P or little p for president in that case?) ((Ignore that: it's "off topic".)) Tone (Naughty)
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 18, 2008 21:46:48 GMT
The passive voice has always been enjoyed by many of us, Vadim. It's no longer valued by some, but is still welcomed by the discerning.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 19, 2008 0:00:50 GMT
Vadim: The passive is fine in formal and academic documents where the active (and often personal) is not appropriate; however, in informal or personal writing, you ought to avoid it (or, if you like: ... in informal or personal writing, it is better avoided) lest the piece appear stilted.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 19, 2008 7:28:20 GMT
I find it interesting that article writing in my field has moved over the last 15 years or so. I was taught to use the passive voice originally but my preference is to use active, as it were. So, instead of "it is thought", I prefer "I think", when I am actually stating my own opinion. I have also written an entire textbook in this style and people seem to like it.
Things are slightly different in reports to clients, where what we are giving them is the corporate view. But even there we sometimes use "we", meaning the firm.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 19, 2008 10:20:34 GMT
There's nothing wrong with the passive voice per se - it has a particular role and is useful when it's that role we need.
However ... there are certainly "bad habits" which can be observed in how people (mis)use it.
At base, we should say what we mean and using the passive sometimes detracts from that.
For example, in a written procedure: the customer must be informed of any change in delivery date - true enough, but it would be better to say that xxx must inform the customer (otherwise, no-one has broken the "rule" when the customer isn't informed, no-one "owns" the responsibility!)
At other times, the passive voice gives an impersonal "distance" to what is being said. If a letter tells me steps will be taken to investigate your complaint and a response will be sent to you, I don't feel half so confident as I would be if the letter said I will investigate your complaint and send a response to you. It sounds a small difference in grammatical positioning, but there are two important "customer service" effects: (1) the customer already feels better (and the bulk of dealing with an irate customer is to ensure that the customer regains trust) and (2) the people doing the investigating and reporting are encouraged through the wording to "own up" to their responsibilities - they are "in on " the relationship with the customer, who is no longer some distant third party.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 19, 2008 11:04:05 GMT
There's nothing wrong with the passive voice per se - it has a particular role and is useful when it's that role we need. However ... there are certainly "bad habits" which can be observed in how people (mis)use it. At base, we should say what we mean and using the passive sometimes detracts from that. For example, in a written procedure: the customer must be informed of any change in delivery date - true enough, but it would be better to say that xxx must inform the customer (otherwise, no-one has broken the "rule" when the customer isn't informed, no-one "owns" the responsibility!) At other times, the passive voice gives an impersonal "distance" to what is being said. If a letter tells me steps will be taken to investigate your complaint and a response will be sent to you, I don't feel half so confident as I would be if the letter said I will investigate your complaint and send a response to you. It sounds a small difference in grammatical positioning, but there are two important "customer service" effects: (1) the customer already feels better (and the bulk of dealing with an irate customer is to ensure that the customer regains trust) and (2) the people doing the investigating and reporting are encouraged through the wording to "own up" to their responsibilities - they are "in on " the relationship with the customer, who is no longer some distant third party. Spot on, sir! Which is why I dislike the passive in professional work and use the more personal approach whereever possible.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 19, 2008 19:37:18 GMT
Old habits die hard: I was taught at school always to use the passive voice when writing scientific reports, and I still think such documents look better - more professional and less egotistical - when wriitten that way. (Not that I see many scientific reports any more.)
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 19, 2008 19:53:14 GMT
Yes. I would be quite appalled to find first-person reporting in many of the things I read (and write). However, there are certainly other places where I would like to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 19, 2008 20:16:23 GMT
> and less egotistical - when wriitten that way<Right on! (It is thought that you are very right in making that statement.) Tone
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 19, 2008 22:14:14 GMT
I process (proofread / edit / layout) about half a dozen Masters / Doctors theses a year, and have only ever seen one that used the active mood - and it did come across as egotistic in the extreme. It was a Fine Arts thesis and it seemed every other sentence was "I / me / my / mine". The candidate's supervisor had her rewrite it in the standard academic passive and third-person. (I had previously suggested that to the candidate, but she "knew better" and insisted I work on it as presented. Consequently, she needed my services a second time; good for my budget, not for hers.)
So definitely don't go using the active voice in academic work unless you have very good reasons (and a supervisor who accepts those reasons).
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 20, 2008 10:20:56 GMT
I have a simple rule of thumb, based on whether the subject of an active verb is known and/or of any interest. If it isn't*, then I usually go for the passive. It seems better to say "the bridge was built in 1864" than "they built the bridge in 1864" since no one knows or cares who "they" were. In this case, even in informal language, the passive often sounds better.
(*It very often is, though.)
Sue
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 20, 2008 11:57:03 GMT
It often puzzles me why it is okay (in an academic context) to write "our results suggest that...", but not "my results suggest that...". Similarly for we/I. (Of course, "the results suggest that..." is fine!) Why doesn't "our" come across as subjective? (This may differ according to field - I'd be interested to know whether others react the same way to "our", as I do to "my".) Susan.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jun 20, 2008 12:12:08 GMT
It often puzzles me why it is okay (in an academic context) to write "our results suggest that...", but not "my results suggest that...". Similarly for we/I. (Of course, "the results suggest that..." is fine!) Why doesn't "our" come across as subjective? (This may differ according to field - I'd be interested to know whether others react the same way to "our", as I do to "my".) Susan. I think I may have been slightly misunderstood, due obviously to my poor wording of the question. In my academic (scientific) writing I am to never use I/me/our/we/he/she/they etc. unless referring to a reference (and even then, if it can be avoided it should). So yes, Susan, I agree; our is just as bad as me. The use of passive voice I was trying (in vain ) to get across, was the use of it within a sentence. My supervisors have differing opinions, but one highlights that I use it extensively -- I never thought it was a problem . >[...] the bridge was built in 1864< --passive. Building of the bridge, took place in 1964. .. would be an example of the difficulties I have faced in recanting sentences that MS word flags as passive voice. Just saying "something IS something" often causes the highlight. At the end of the check, MS Word then gives "readability statistics" and this is to what I was referring.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 20, 2008 13:20:57 GMT
Hi Vadim
You seem to have several conflicting requirements, coming at you from different directions!
From the various responses, I think we can take it that:
(1) in academic reports (of research and experimentation), the passive voice is normal, and sometimes strictly enforced.
(2) the passive is useful elsewhere, when it's simply not relevant who did or is doing the action - hence Sue's example of the bridge.
(3) where the "doer" IS relevant, for reasons of fact or to give the text the appropriate immediacy, the active voice works better.
(4) MS Word will (if so set) give warnings about the use of the passive - these cases need to be considered by the writer, each on its own merits. Word is reporting the use of the passive, not banning it. (We might also note that the warning can be triggered by things that aren't actually the passive voice.)
So ... you need to decide. When you think about a particular example, you may find you can use a better construction, or you may decide that the existing construction is best - either way, you'll have decided what it is you mean to say, so you can confidently say that!
|
|