Why do you avoid passive voice?

[Xwtek]

When I write, I found that active voice is preferred over passive. Why?

Currently, I use passive voice when the object is more salient than the subject. Example:

Genetic information is encoded by DNA. (We are talking about genetic code, not DNA)

[alice]

The passive voice has a place in scientific discourse, but otherwise it is generally avoided because it sounds clumsy, contrived, and awkward.

[Vijay]

The passive voice has a place in scientific discourse, but otherwise it is generally avoided

[Xwtek]

The passive voice has a place in scientific discourse, but otherwise it is generally avoided because it sounds clumsy, contrived, and awkward.

But then, it will also be awkward if I changed what is the most salient of the two just to avoid using passive voice.

The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins. Translation is accomplished by the ribosome. During translation, ribosome links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.

Now what happens if I suddenly changed the important topic to ribosome rather than transcription for just second sentence. So it becomes

The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) into proteins. Ribosome accomplishes translation. During translation, ribosome which links amino acids in an order specified by messenger RNA (mRNA), using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.

Why do we suddenly talking about ribosome? And why then we suddenly changed back the topic to genetic code?

[akam chinjir]

For more of an answer than you could possible want, you could look at Geoffrey Pullum's Fear and Loathing of the English Passive.

There are two main sorts of complaint against the passive, I think: that people often use it to avoid having to attribute responsibility, and that English passives (mostly) use "to be," and "to be" somehow lacks oomph. But railing against the passive has also become something people do when discussing English rhetoric, not always for any good reason (and not always with any real understanding of what the passive voice is). It can't have helped that at some point word processors started flagging purportedly passive verbs as part of their grammar checking.

[Xwtek]

I use passive voice when the object is proximate (as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obviative). Otherwise, I use active voice, with proximal argument fronted.

[Kuchigakatai]

Why do you avoid passive voice?

I don't, and I shall complain if I continue to be accused that way. The passive or hyptic voice is to be placed on the same level as the active or orthic voice.

[Vijay]

My English teachers in school generally seemed to discourage the use of passive voice. Soon after I met my first such English teacher, I took a trip to India, where I met a professor of Malayalam (but not at a major university or anything; the closest equivalent to his job position in the US would be a community college professor). He discussed a lot of different things with me when we met; one thing he asked me was something like "which of these would you be most likely to say in English: 'I kicked the ball' or 'the ball was kicked by me'?" I said, "'I kicked the ball'." He ignored my answer and said (more or less), "'The ball is kicked by me' would be the most common way to say this in English. But in Malayalam, this isn't possible" etc.

Now what happens if I suddenly changed the important topic to ribosome rather than transcription for just second sentence.

You don't have to do that just to change the sentence from passive voice to active voice, though. For instance, you could say something like "the part of a cell that accomplishes translation is the ribosome."

[Zaarin]

When learning the basics of writing, one must learn the basic rules like "avoid passive voice." Learning to write well involves knowing when not to follow those basic rules, including when to use passive voice.

[zompist]

This is a nice example of the difference between linguistics and rhetoric! For linguists, valence is fascinating, and the passive is useful as a way of reducing valence.

Cross-linguistically, there are many ways to reduce valence— reflexives, topicalization, impersonal verbs, inverse affixes (used in Algonquian when a verb isn't behaving according to the animacy hierarchy), etc. Obviously this is something speakers of languages need and want to do!

How you should talk, as opposed to how you do, is the domain of rhetoric. And the rhetorical principles of being direct and making it clear who's acting are sensible. Passives can be quite weaselly, e.g. "The employees were terminated" rather than "We fired the employees". Writing clearly and simply does not come naturally to most people, and needs training.

But rhetoricians sometimes don't understand enough how language works, so they over-generalize their rules. One of the reasons people use the passive is because of topicalization— if I'm talking about my dog, then "My dog got sprayed by a skunk" is the natural way of describing the event. (This is basically the point Akangka was making.)

But really, there are competing rhetorics. Scientists write papers in a particular style because everyone else does. If they followed English professors' guidance it'd seem eccentric and probably the journals would complain.

[Salmoneus]

I do not avoid passive voice. I suggest rewording the question to "why is the passive voice avoided?"


Note Pullum's point that "the passive voice is bad" has effectively become true by definition, because any prose that anyone considered bad is by definition considered to be in "the passive voice".

Or more generously, when non-grammarians talk about "the passive voice", what they actually mean is "a passive style", which means not writing like Hemmingway.

Why is Hemmingway good? Because Hemmingway was very fashionable in the era when a lot of modern style advice was formulated. And is still relatively admired, particularly by Manly Business Folk, who tend to be the chief consumers of this sort of style advice.

If you were to read style advice by Jane Austen or David Hume fans directed at historians, the recommendations would probably be quite different. But those writers are not in fashion with Manly Business Folk. However, the Humean style is certainly rather more in keeping with the tastes of, for example, academic researchers...


Shorter observation: any advice telling you to always do a thing one way is wrong. The way you should do it, whatever it is, depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Writing like Hemmingway is good, for selling things to Manly Business Folk who like Hemmingway, or know enough about Manliness to know that they should say that if they had times to read books they'd be by Hemmingway. There are other purposes, such as drafting diplomatic communiques, for which it is shit.

Manly business presentation: Those guys dropped the ball. They've got to pick it up, find synergies, and score some wins.
Diplomatic communique: In some contested border areas, there has been a regrettable increase in tension, and accordingly it has been agreed that this development is to be addressed through a dialogue between all affected parties.

If you rephrase the latter as "Belgium killed some people. What the fuck, Belgium? Belgium, get your shit together and stop that", Hemmingway would be very posthumously happy, but it would not aid the development of a diplomatic resolution to the situation. Language styles are situational.

[Travis B.]

I nominate "synergy" for the very worst word in the English language.

[Moose-tache]

But without synergy, how will we ideate paradigms?

Here is a video of Steven Pinker (not necessarily wanking Steven Pinker here, just a cool video) trying to come up with a more objective guide to writing style based on linguistic knowledge. It's worth a listen, though it mostly weasels out of the really hard stuff (i.e. he never tells the Latinists to go jump off a pier in so many words, just sort of mentions that piers exist and that they're a thing quite suddenly off of which one could jump). He mentions the common point about topicalization, and how awkward it would be if salient direct objects were constantly being upstaged by irrelevant subjects simply out of a misplaced sense of syntactic duty. But his point about why a more enlightened writer with a knowledge of linguistics might still avoid the passive voice in a lot of situations is interesting: many inexperienced writers use it without clear intent simply because they're writing their ideas as those ideas occur to them. In a complex sentence some writers will begin with whatever noun phrase pops into their head first, and then build a sentence around it, as Chekhov put it, like a girl who can only remember a dance by starting from the kitchen stove (or something like that, my memory is terrible). English gives us the tools to alter valency, marked topicality, and word order, but does not impose on us the good sense to use those tools for good.

Also, the bit about Hemingway-style writing being "in vogue" because of business types stealing lunch money from the nerds and giving them swirlies is a slight exaggeration. All the major style guides in the US are written by and for academics, not business professionals. But the general sentiment that it's all a matter of fashion and happenstance, and influenced by the mid-century literary flirtation with journalistic brevity, is spot-on. I wonder what fashions we're propagating now that will make future writers roll their eyes at us. Probably this whole business of insisting that universal spelling conventions be observed across every type of media? That's my guess.

[Zaarin]

Also, the bit about Hemingway-style writing being "in vogue" because of business types stealing lunch money from the nerds and giving them swirlies is a slight exaggeration. All the major style guides in the US are written by and for academics, not business professionals. But the general sentiment that it's all a matter of fashion and happenstance, and influenced by the mid-century literary flirtation with journalistic brevity, is spot-on. I wonder what fashions we're propagating now that will make future writers roll their eyes at us. Probably this whole business of insisting that universal spelling conventions be observed across every type of media? That's my guess.

I don't read a lot of modern fiction because a lot of it is influenced by Hemmingway's style (which I loathe--prose should be beautiful, not composed of hijacked newspaper headlines--give me Tolkien or Le Guin or Austen any day), but having recently forayed into fiction published in my lifetime, he seems to be finally going out of style. Then again, maybe Kazuo Ishiguro and David James Duncan aren't really representative of modern style...

[Linguoboy]

I don't read a lot of modern fiction because a lot of it is influenced by Hemmingway's style (which I loathe--prose should be beautiful, not composed of hijacked newspaper headlines--give me Tolkien or Le Guin or Austen any day), but having recently forayed into fiction published in my lifetime, he seems to be finally going out of style. Then again, maybe Kazuo Ishiguro and David James Duncan aren't really representative of modern style...

Modern fiction for manly men tends to be concentrated in certain genres, like noir or hard SF. I don't read those much so I rarely come across it. The main claimant to his mantle seems to be Cormac McCarthy. I read one book by him and that was enough.

I have noticed a more general tendency toward simply sentence structure, especially in languages like German where Schachtelsätze used to be all the rage. That's noticeable in expository writing too and it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Zaarin]

I don't read a lot of modern fiction because a lot of it is influenced by Hemmingway's style (which I loathe--prose should be beautiful, not composed of hijacked newspaper headlines--give me Tolkien or Le Guin or Austen any day), but having recently forayed into fiction published in my lifetime, he seems to be finally going out of style. Then again, maybe Kazuo Ishiguro and David James Duncan aren't really representative of modern style...

Modern fiction for manly men tends to be concentrated in certain genres, like noir or hard SF. I don't read those much so I rarely come across it. The main claimant to his mantle seems to be Cormac McCarthy. I read one book by him and that was enough.

I love noir as a visual aesthetic, but I can't say I've ever been inclined to read hardboiled mystery. I avoid hard SF like the plague. A friend once forced me to read the first book of the Foundation trilogy, and I spent the entire book wishing that Asimov used the same snarky self-aggrandizing voice he used in some of his non-fiction--it would have made trudging through that misery a thousand times more enjoyable. He still occasionally reminds me I didn't read the full trilogy, but I think I'm good on that front. I think the only book suggestions he ever took from me were A Canticle for Leibowitz and The Left Hand of Darkness...

I have noticed a more general tendency toward simply sentence structure, especially in languages like German where Schachtelsätze used to be all the rage. That's noticeable in expository writing too and it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Heh, I've always associated Henry James with German-style never ending sentences, so it's amusing to hear that German now prefers simpler sentences. I used to favor complex sentences as well, but working as a transcriptionist has conditioned me to simplify. I agree that it's not a bad thing (though I still accuse Hemingway of simplifying too far).

[mèþru]

I love both Tolkien and Asimov's styles. What's wrong with me?

[zompist]

Sal's overall point is fine, but... "manly business men"? Has he ever read a business memo? Here's a random bit of business prose (admittedly worse than usual because it's ESL, or a translation):

In terms of product segmentation, allow me to present some internal figures. We are well aware of the fact about the worldwide flattish PC sales growth and it is even in the decline. This size of bubble chart carried out by Acer Business Intelligence gives us a pictorial representation of the estimated relative market sizes, selling prices, and projected revenue growth rates of each product segments. The
products with high selling price does not always translates into high margin, but high gross profit amount. We focus on growing our market share in those segments which are expected to command high selling price and at the same time possess strong revenue growth rates into the future such as gaming PCs, the Chromebook, ultra-slim and 2-1 notebooks. The group is clear of our targeted market and aware of those future opportunities. The management pays great attention to ensure we divert the right amount of effort and resources into sectors identified to bring promising returns.

Could be worse, but it's certainly not simple and direct; the actual information content is nearly nil. You could rephrase the whole thing as "Like you, we want to make as much money as possible. The market is disappointing but we're focusing on the bits that are OK."

As for Jane Austen, here's a sample:

“What is his name?”
“Bingley.”
“Is he married or single?”
“Oh! Single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!”
“How so? How can it affect them?”
“My dear Mr. Bennet,” replied his wife, “how can you be so tiresome! You must know that I am thinking of his marrying one of them.”
“Is that his design in settling here?”
“Design! Nonsense, how can you talk so! But it is very likely that he may fall in love with one of them, and therefore you must visit him as soon as he comes.”
“I see no occasion for that. You and the girls may go, or you may send them by themselves, which perhaps will be still better, for as you are as handsome as any of them, Mr. Bingley may like you the best of the party.”
“My dear, you flatter me. I certainly have had my share of beauty, but I do not pretend to be anything extraordinary now. When a woman has five grown-up daughters, she ought to give over thinking of her own beauty.”

Given the lapse of nearly 200 years, it's lively and direct. Austen isn't scared of a passive, but she doesn't use it much in dialog.

[Salmoneus]

I don't read a lot of modern fiction because a lot of it is influenced by Hemmingway's style (which I loathe--prose should be beautiful, not composed of hijacked newspaper headlines--give me Tolkien or Le Guin or Austen any day), but having recently forayed into fiction published in my lifetime, he seems to be finally going out of style. Then again, maybe Kazuo Ishiguro and David James Duncan aren't really representative of modern style...

Modern fiction for manly men tends to be concentrated in certain genres, like noir or hard SF. I don't read those much so I rarely come across it. The main claimant to his mantle seems to be Cormac McCarthy. I read one book by him and that was enough.

Which book?
I've never been really persuaded by McCarthy's content, but his style is just gorgeous - incredible talent as a prose stylist, imo.
[I've read Blood Meridian, which is stunning as an artwork, and the Border Trilogy, which work much better as novels. The Trilogy has a more mundane, though still beautiful, style, while the prose of Blood Meridian is this ridiculous, neogothic edifice...]


Modern literary fiction, in my limited understanding, seems to be dominated by two impulses. One is the homogenous "MFA" school, which is basically the journalistic Hemingway/Orwell/etc style that's had the edges smoothed off with a wash or two in some colloquial English, and then ornamented by occasional quirky sentences. The other is the "ironic" school of taking the journalistic style and intentionally breaking all the rules - making your language pointlessly ornate and longwinded, but in an often intentionally ugly and confusing way because you're being Ironic. The former school is associated by people who get their books into book clubs and literary prizes; the latter, with people whose fans brag about how much they despise book clubs and literary prizes because they're SO easy-reading and conventional.

Personally, I don't much like either style. They're both predictable.


Zaarin: Asimov's style is quite variable; certainly many of his stories do have more of his ironic side. Regarding Foundation, the best bits are generally considered to be in the second and third books (specifically the second half of each), though it's been ages since I read any of it. That said, Asimov - father of 'social science fiction' is almost the opposite of 'hard science fiction', particularly in the Foundation novels, which rely on things like FTL and handheld nuclear reactors and telepathy...




Zompist: on business English, I think all you're pointing out there is that these writers are shit. Or more precisely, there's a big gulf between what they say they want, and what they tend to actually produce. Which even they realise: the reason there's so much emphasis on things like "don't be passive!" (and yes, I've personally been told to avoid the passive tense, when I wasn't using it) is that they recognise that a lot of corporate English is overly timid. In the same way that the people who read self-help books often aren't actually actuating their potentialities, so too people who read write-better books often aren't actually streamlining their prose styles.

As for Austen: having literally just read Pride and Prejudice, I can assure you that that is not representative of much of her non-dialogue prose. Opening my copy at random, the first paragraph I look at says:
Mary had neither genius nor taste; and though vanity had given her application, it had given her likewise a pedantic air and conceited manner, which would have injured a higher degree of excellence than she had reached. Elizabeth, easy and unaffected, had been listened to with much more pleasure, though not playing half so well; and Mary, at the end of a long concerto, was glad to purchase praise and gratitude by Scotch and Irish airs, at the request of her younger sister, who with some of the Lucases and two or three officers joined eagerly in dancing at one end of the room.
Indeed, that zingy repartee isn't even characteristic of her dialogue, which often takes the form of huge blocks of exposition in a similar style to her general prose (though generally broken into shorter sentences).

Indeed, because I've been looking for this bit to quote elsewhere, here's the sparkling, steamy romantic dialogue that kicks off the love story in earnest:

More: show

"You expect me to account for opinions which you chuse to call mine, but which I have never acknowledged. Allowing the case, however, to stand according to your representation, you must remember, Miss Bennet, that the friend who is supposed to desire his return to the house, and the delay of his plan, has merely desired it, asking it without offering one argument in favour of its propriety."
- "To yield readily - easily - to the persuasion of a friend is no merit with you."
"To yield without conviction is no compliment to the understanding of either."
- "You appear to me, Mr Darcy, to allow nothing fo the influence of friendship and affection. A regard for the requester would often make one readily yield to a request, without waiting for arguments to reason one into it. I am not particularly speaking of such a case as you have supposed about Mr Bingley. We may as well wait, perhaps, till the circumstance occurs, before we discuss the discretion of his behaviour thereupon. But in general and ordinary cases between friend and friend, where one of them is desired by the other to change a resolution of no very great moment, should you think ill of that person for complying with the desire, without waiting to be argued into it?"
"Will it not be advisable, before we proceed on this subject, to arrange with rather more precision the degree of importance which is to appertain to this request, as well as the degree of intimacy subsisting between the parties?"

It's delightful, baroque writing... but, while it may not be overloaded with passive voice constructions in the grammatical sense, it's almost a textbook hypothesis of every possible thing that Pullum's citations mean by 'passive voice', as well as a number of other traits that the same writers probably also decry! [indeed, Austen often actually seems to avoid a passive, by doing something else the same writers decry, like using auxiliaries and causatives and relatives and dummy subjects and so on.] It makes your business memo read like Hemingway...

Certainly I'm to stand by the assertion: if the writers of this sort of advice were greater fans of Austen and lesser fans of Hemingway, they would give somewhat different advice as to distinguishing felicities of style, by and large.

[Zaarin]

Modern literary fiction, in my limited understanding, seems to be dominated by two impulses. One is the homogenous "MFA" school, which is basically the journalistic Hemingway/Orwell/etc style that's had the edges smoothed off with a wash or two in some colloquial English, and then ornamented by occasional quirky sentences. The other is the "ironic" school of taking the journalistic style and intentionally breaking all the rules - making your language pointlessly ornate and longwinded, but in an often intentionally ugly and confusing way because you're being Ironic. The former school is associated by people who get their books into book clubs and literary prizes; the latter, with people whose fans brag about how much they despise book clubs and literary prizes because they're SO easy-reading and conventional.

Personally, I don't much like either style. They're both predictable.

Have you tried Kazuo Ishiguro? Part of what I appreciate about him is his elegant prose which is neither sparse like the Hemingway school nor pretentiously purple.