Passive Voice

[Faithkeeper]

In my schooling thus far I've been told to avoid passive voice. In my experience, however, especially in conversation, I find it useful as a tool for persuasion, discussion, and friendly debate.

EDIT: Wrong wording. I really meant a passive tone. Or whatever the real word for passive tone is. But we can go with it. So basically everything after this paragraph is irrelevant to the actual topic of debate, and is directed to the intended topic of debate. You can pick one and continue.

Persuasion:
I've found that most people react better to suggestions when you don't actually tell them to do something. A large point in Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is focused on getting the person you are persuading to think your idea is their own. This almost comes down to the difference between a suggestion and command when advising others, and in my experience people generally don't want to be ordered around.

Discussion:
Much the same as discussion, ... really just applied to a larger setting.

Friendly Debate:
In friendly debate there's not real point in having your "opponent" lose face, so the strength gained from a more active statement isn't always necessary. One of the best point of passive voice in my opinion is that it keeps you out of trouble if you were wrong. Sometimes we are wrong. Passive voice "reduces the damage" of a loss. By avoiding words such as "undoubtedly" or "surely" and replace them with precursors such as "in my experience" or "from what I've observed" or "I was led to believe otherwise, this study says...", if, in fact, you were wrong, you never really set your stance firmly on that viewpoint, and your transition to the other viewpoint is not really seen as you "losing." I don't really find the purpose of friendly debate to be to win anyway, it often causes dissension when you prove someone wrong.

Obviously there are certainly situations where active voice is preferable, I simply make the argument that passive voice does have a viable purpose and perhaps should not be introduced as "wrong" in education.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ah, passive voice. Here's a great article on passive voice.

The article focuses on the grammatical aspects of passive vs active voice, which is mainly when you make the object of an action into the subject of a sentence.

"The metropolis has been scorched by the dragon's fiery breath." (passive)
"The dragon scorched the metropolis with his fiery breath." (active)

and normally always follows by this formula: form of "to be" + past participle

(is, are, am , was, were, has been, have been, had been, will be, will have been, being) + the verb typically in its "ed" form

So when is it OK to use the passive?

Sometimes the passive voice is the best choice. Here are a few instances when the passive voice is quite useful:

1. To emphasize an object.Take a look at this example:

100 votes are required to pass the bill.

This passive sentence emphasizes the number of votes required. An active version of the sentence ("The bill requires 100 votes to pass") would put the emphasis on the bill, which may be less dramatic.

2. To de-emphasize an unknown subject/actor. Consider this example:

Over 120 different contaminants have been dumped into the river.

If you don't know who the actor is—in this case, if you don't actually know who dumped all of those contaminants in the river—then you may need to write in the passive. But remember, if you do know the actor, and if the clarity and meaning of your writing would benefit from indicating him/her/it/them, then use an active construction. Yet consider the third case.

3. If your readers don't need to know who's responsible for the action.

Here's where your choice can be difficult; some instances are less clear than others. Try to put yourself in your reader's position to anticipate how he/she will react to the way you have phrased your thoughts. Here are two examples:

Baby Sophia was delivered at 3:30 a.m. yesterday.(passive)
and

Dr. Susan Jones delivered baby Sophia at 3:30 a.m. yesterday.(active)
The first sentence might be more appropriate in a birth announcement sent to family and friends—they are not likely to know Dr. Jones and are much more interested in the "object"(the baby) than in the actor (the doctor). A hospital report of yesterday's events might be more likely to focus on Dr. Jones' role.

In regards to your points, well all of those can use either passive or active voice. The difference between a suggestion and a demand for instance isn't that one is passive and one is active, it's more that one is subtle and one is overt. I do agree that one is preferable over the other, especially when trying to get something accomplished. Which one works best however typically depends on the situation. To demand the dragon's fire be put out ("Get that fire put out!") is probably more effective than suggesting it be done ("Don't you think it'd be a good idea to put this fire out?").

 

[Faithkeeper]

In regards to your points, well all of those can use either passive or active voice. The difference between a suggestion and a demand for instance isn't that one is passive and one is active, it's more that one is subtle and one is overt. I do agree that one is preferable over the other, especially when trying to get something accomplished. Which one works best however typically depends on the situation. To demand the dragon's fire be put out ("Get that fire put out!") is probably more effective than suggesting it be done ("Don't you think it'd be a good idea to put this fire out?").

Good point. I guess I was thinking passive tone. or something like that. Epic failure on my part, but you brought up some relevant stuff, I wish I was taught with those examples mentioned rather than having a blanket statement of "it's wrong." Or maybe my local schooling was just bad, were others taught the same?

 

[Sucumbio]

It must depend on the school district, but I was -not- taught about passive and active voice until college when it was brought up during a lecture and only because the student was using microsoft word's grammar check which tends to fire that one constantly "avoid using passive verb tense" or some such thing. But yeah, the explanation we got was pretty much "avoid if you can because it weakens your writing" but the explanation in that article is literally the best I've seen.

haha I kinda thought you weren't meaning passive voice in the traditional sense but I didn't want to appear rude by being all "what are you talking about" but yeah, its funny you should cite that book btw cause it was a b-day gift from my mom when I was like 15 and I never did read it! I just thought to myself "ha, thanks a LOT" but I've heard it's insightful and to see your example I believe the reviews. Indeed it is a valuable skill to persuade someone in such a manner.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I've been taught about both passive voice and active voice, but just like you two, my teachers generally just said passive voice was wrong. It's too bad really. I think high school English classes could go much more in-depth on this subject. Great article, Sucumbio.

 

[Sucumbio]

Truly, in fact I am working towards acquiring my state teaching license for English and as part of this observed 10 hours of class time. Most of it was in 10th and 11th grade English. God, things have changed. "block" scheduling, ... uniforms. They still say the pledge of allegiance which caught me off guard, teacher all "stand up!" who me? oh yeah.. doh. But yeah grammar is important and is rarely developed beyond simple definitions and standards. They even have a great text book to use for it but they only touch on a few sections, most of the class time is spent on literature and SSI (sustained silent reading). But of course if you have grammar errors in your assignments you still get counted off for it. I didn't do well in high school English for two main reasons: I hated reading, I hated grammar. My goal as a teacher is to turn this around for kids who felt as I did. SSI works well for encouraging reading, because the students can choose their reading material, and it's not heavily graded if at all. Grammar, not sure how I'll tackle that one. Even making it "fun" kids see right through that and dismiss it, but methinks a lot of why kids hate grammar lessons is because it's taught as rules and less explanations. If a student learns -why- passive voice is less effective in writing than active voice, they're more likely to be receptive to the knowledge than just being taught "passive voice is wrong."

 

[GoldShadow]

I think active voice is encouraged for things like persuasive essays. It makes sense in these. It also sounds more clear and concise, which are both pluses. Passive voice has its uses, more in some contexts than in others, but written work generally sounds better in predominantly active voice.

Anyway, Sucumbio's post covered it quite well so there isn't much more I can add.