Active Voice vs. Passive Voice 3

[Stella740pl]

This topic started in the thread1256-1068995, “Between or Among” and has grown large there, so it deserves a separate thread.

In the other thread, I quoted Usage Note from YourDictionary.com on the words “between” and “among” (

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0218800.html),

which SantaMufasa called “an atrocious example of writing in weak passive voice, thus reducing its credibility as a source of scholarly linguistics”, and has rewritten the excerpt in all active voice upon request.

I responded with the following:

Hey, guys, for what it's worth coming form a ESL person, I don't agree with the notion that passive voice should be avoided at all costs.

If it exists in the language, it is there for a reason, and it does have its place, and could be appropriate. Instead, many people treat any use of passive voice almost like a profanity.

English-speaking people were first taught how to use passive voice, than trained not to use it ever again. Of course, it is much easier to say "don't" to the students than to bring up the taste and the skills necessary to know how and where to use it correctly.

In the rephrased paragraph, I don't think "the active-voice version is stronger"; and do we really need it any "more precise"? Why should we scramble for precise word "speaker" if it could a writer, as well? What valuable precise information it adds to the phrase?

Or this example.
   Passive: The suspect was taken into custody.
   Active:  Police took the suspect into custody.
It's OK on it's own, but in a story, the word could have been just used in the previous sentence, and the writer might have tried to avoid the repetition, while not adding any new info to the piece (well, police of course, who else would it be).

I would say that the first sentence in the rewritten paragraph is not clear, doesn't feel complete, and was better in its original version (sorry, SantaMufasa, nothing personal). I had to read it twice and stopped short, looking for something else that might follow, like below:

[i]According to a popular but baseless tradition, “Use ‘between’ for two, and ‘among’ for more than two”, such and such was going on.[/i]

SantaMufasa:

[quote=Stella]
I don't agree with the notion that passive voice should be avoided at all costs.
[/quote]
Stella, notice I have never said, "Avoid passive voice at all costs.". My suggestion is avoid passive voice. By definition, passive voice obscures the subject of the sentence, the "do-er". Any sentence that hides important information cannot be as precise or as useful as an explicit disclosure of the subject.
[quote=Stella]
In the rephrased paragraph, I don't think "the active-voice version is stronger..."
[/quote]
...and that is certainly your choice. But one cannot suggest that the active-voice version is weaker than the passive-voice. So, if active voice is always equal to or stronger than the passive voice, I believe I will err on the side of active voice.

If, in some specific case, passive voice were stronger, more precise, more eloquent, than active voice, I would use the passive voice. And there have been one or two cases where I have gritted my teeth and used the passive voice for exactly that rationale...but you can't force me to like it. <grin>  

(Passive-voice re-write: "If, in some specific case, passive voice were stronger, more precise, more eloquent, than active voice, then [b]passive voice would be used[/b]. And there have been one or two cases where [b]my teeth have been gritted [/b]and the [b]passive voice was used[/b] for exactly that rationale...but [b]I can't be forced[/b] to like it." <double-grin>)

Please, share your take on this.

I also will answer SantaMufasa; just maybe a little later.

 

[Stella740pl]

I have never said, "Avoid passive voice at all costs."
...
Any sentence that hides important information cannot be as precise or as useful as an explicit disclosure of the subject.

But it's exactly what you did. You replaced every single occurrence, and even more than that, and even "made up" that important information where it wasn't there, not adding anything really useful, information-wise, to the paragraph.

...and that is certainly your choice.

Not really. If you and plenty of other educated people were taught that mere fact of using passive voice reduces "credibility of a source of scholarly linguistics" the source, what choice do I have? And passive voice can really be more precise than active: if you need to make up the subject of the sentence, the precision is reduced, not increased. Your examples can be used here.

"you can't force me to like it."
It is not precise, as I was not going to make you anything, and it can always be complemented with something like "but my wife can".

"I can't be forced to like it."
Now, that is clear.
(Of course, if you said "no one can force me to like it.", that would be equally clear.)

On the other hand,
"I have gritted my teeth." is clearly more precise than "My teeth have been gritted.", as I now know you are not referring to your dentist, and you don't need to make up the subject, it's known and it adds information to the sentence.

Would my first post be stronger or more precise if, instead of "I don't agree with the notion that passive voice should be avoided at all costs." I used "I don't agree with the notion that one (I? We? Everybody? Anybody? People? Speakers? Writers?) should avoid passive voice at all costs." ? I don't think so.

 

[craigsboyd]

The following were helpful to me:

From: The Writing Center

Passive constructions are easy to spot; look for a form of "to be" (is, are, am , was, were, has been, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) followed by a past participle. (The past participle is a form of the verb often, but not always, ending in "-ed." Some exceptions to the "-ed" rule are words like "paid" and "driven.") Here's a sure-fire formula for identifying the passive voice:

form of "to be" + past participle = passive voice

For example:

The metropolis has been scorched by the dragon's fiery breath.

When her house was invaded, Penelope had to think of ways to delay her remarriage.

From: The Passive Voice

The passive voice does exist for a reason, however, and its presence is not always to be despised. The passive is particularly useful (even recommended) in two situations:

When it is more important to draw our attention to the person or thing acted upon: The unidentified victim was apparently struck during the early morning hours.

When the actor in the situation is not important: The aurora borealis can be observed in the early morning hours.

I don't know enough to speak directly to the argument being made. However, I do feel that I am learning something of value here. IMHO, my own writing (or typing as it were) could be much improved by bearing passive voice in mind. It's going to take some practice though.

http://www.sweetpotatosoftware.com

 

[chipperMDW]

By definition, passive voice obscures the subject of the sentence, the "do-er". Any sentence that hides important information cannot be as precise or as useful as an explicit disclosure of the subject.

This advice against using the passive voice also highlights the very situation in which you should use it.

Rather than saying that passive "obscures" the subject, let's just say that it gives the subject secondary importance in the sentence while placing the reader's/listener's attention primarily on the direct object (which may be implied).

Thus, you should use the passive when your intention is to highlight the direct object of a sentence -- when that's what you're talking about.

For example, consider the following statements based on Stella's example:
[ol][li]Police apprehended the suspect.[/li]
[li]The suspect was apprehended by the police.[/li][/ol]

While the two sentences have a similar (arguably the same) meaning, the first focuses on the police, and the second focuses on the suspect.

In an article describing the accomplishments of the police, the first sentence is appropriate because the article is about the police, and so is the sentence. The second sentence would be horribly out of place in an article about the police, since the sentence is about the suspect.

At the end of an article describing the suspect and his crime spree, however, the second sentence is more appropriate because it, like the article itself, focuses on the suspect. The first one would be awkward because it asks the reader to focus on a "secondary character."


I've been the victim of many red pen marks claiming, "You are never supposed to use the passive voice."

If that's true, then why don't they write, "One supposes you to never use the passive voice"?

 

[Zathras]

Because "to never use" is a split infinitive?

 

[strongm]

 

[Stella740pl]

Split Infinitive - another questionable rule/superstition/taboo.

These days, you can probably find more arguments for use of split infinitives than against it. In many sources there is a well balanced analysis behind the rule and the reasons to drop it.

See these:

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/s/split.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspliti.html

Also, did you hear about obligatorily split infinitive?

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002180.html