A while back there was a discussion in the grammar forum about what the passive voice is and does in English. I was confused about a comment Schweta made about a focus-shift involved. The problem is a confusion between semantics and structure. I said I'd revive this discussion, but haven't so far. I'll do that now.
Voice in English
A major problem we have when talking about voice in English is that only one voice is explicitly expressed: the passive voice. And to complicate matters it's expressed as a "periphrastic construction"; it involves more than one word, none of which is exclusive to expressing the passive voice. It's the arrangement of the words that makes the passive: "was kicked" is passive voice, but "was" isn't passive, nor is "kicked". This has led some grammarians to claim that English does not have a passive voice, even though it can express the concept in predictable ways.
This sounds like a quibble, but isn't once you start to wonder about voice in general. If there is a passive voice, do we have an "active voice"? By semantic analogy, this is a reasonable assumption. But since the "active voice" is not marked formally in English, this raises other questions:
a) When is it useful to talk about "active voice"?
and
b) Are there other voices that are left unmarked in English?
Any enquiry into voice in English must start with passive voice, the marked voice.
Only two types of verbs in English can take the passive voice:
a) transitive verbs (verbs that take a direct object)
This leaves us with two types of verbs:
- linking verbs
and
- intransitive verbs
Since linking verbs only describe a state (stative) instead of an event (dynamic) it's not reasonable to apply the distinction between active and passive voice to them. I haven't anyone seen do this, so I won't talk about linking verbs.
But what about intransitive verbs? Let's look at the semantics, here:
It seems, then, that (a) lacks an agent; the subject is an "experiencer". [If you wish to read up on the distinction: linguists call (a) unaccusative verbs and (b) unergative verbs.]
My own intuition is that verbs like "sing" can usefully be analysed as active, while words like "broke" can't. Some grammarians posit a "middle voice" for verbs like (a), a voice where the grammatical subject undergoes a change. Notice the difference betwee:
But that's not the extent of it. Take a word like "kiss".
There is a (rare) intransitive use:
As it is, the only voice that English expresses explicitly is the "passive voice". The point here is to show that saying "Use the Active Voice" is not the same as "Don't Use the Passive Voice", and that it's not immediately clear what the person who spouts this rule means.
Yes, I'm heading towards Strunk's Elements of Style. (I'm using the old original because it's available online for free. The only difference I found for the purpose here is one example - "the sound of the falls" have been replaced by "the cock's crow".)
Use the Active Voice
As I said above this is not the same as "Don't Use the Passive Voice". It's potentially a broader rule, and I think that Strunk does make that broader rule. It's not immediately apparant, though. He starts off comparing active and passive voice:
But then he switches track, talking about the "habitual use of the active voice". We get the following sentence:
Personally, I think Strunk's point would have been clearer if he had worked with "minimal pairs": sentences that only differ in the one aspect that he means to change. But basically Strunk's making up wordy sentences and replacing them with more concise ones. He didn't do this, so I think he's not talking about "grammatical issues" at all, but about compositional principles:
Strunk thinks that many wordy sentneces can be re-written if you organise them around a single transitive verb. This makes (limited) sense, because transitive verbs have both a subject and an object, and thus allow to get rid of much "filler" (such as prepositions: "lying on the ground" --> "covered the ground").
So basically the passive voice makes you use more words, as it is a periphrastic construction, and it may require you to account for the agent that the passive voice tends to leave out.
As a tool, this is valuable methodology. But it's stated in categorical terms, and causes confusion because it focuses for long stretches about the active vs. passive distinction, and then uses linking verb constructions without comment (apart from the quoted sentences above).
But is this all? Why is the passive voice so prominent then? Is there something else, something implied? The idea of having something done to a subject, rather than than having the subject do something? A semantic, an ideological subcurrent that "victims" aren't worth talking about?
Is there a feeling that word magicians make the subject of a sentence seem more vigorous by using the active voice? That "I experienced defeat," is somewhat more appealing than "I was defeated"? (Notice that this is, again, different from "X defeated me." It's not a simple conversion methodology if I understand right.)
So why is the passive voice passive? To me, it was always just another grammatical structure that can be used in all the wrong places. Should we really construct most of our sentences around the unmarked transitive paradigm? Would this improve our writing?
"It hasn't rained for weeks." --> "Rain hasn't doused our fields in weeks."
I wonder.
Any thoughts?
Voice in English
A major problem we have when talking about voice in English is that only one voice is explicitly expressed: the passive voice. And to complicate matters it's expressed as a "periphrastic construction"; it involves more than one word, none of which is exclusive to expressing the passive voice. It's the arrangement of the words that makes the passive: "was kicked" is passive voice, but "was" isn't passive, nor is "kicked". This has led some grammarians to claim that English does not have a passive voice, even though it can express the concept in predictable ways.
This sounds like a quibble, but isn't once you start to wonder about voice in general. If there is a passive voice, do we have an "active voice"? By semantic analogy, this is a reasonable assumption. But since the "active voice" is not marked formally in English, this raises other questions:
a) When is it useful to talk about "active voice"?
and
b) Are there other voices that are left unmarked in English?
Any enquiry into voice in English must start with passive voice, the marked voice.
Only two types of verbs in English can take the passive voice:
a) transitive verbs (verbs that take a direct object)
I kick the ball. --> The ball was kicked (by me).
b) some prepositional verbs (verbs that take prepositional phrases)
I slept in that bed. --> That bed was slept in. (Just look at the sheets!)
You can rely on Joe. --> Joe can be relied on.
So it's reasonable to assume that - if a verb has a marked, passive form - it's unmarked form expresses active voice.You can rely on Joe. --> Joe can be relied on.
This leaves us with two types of verbs:
- linking verbs
and
- intransitive verbs
Since linking verbs only describe a state (stative) instead of an event (dynamic) it's not reasonable to apply the distinction between active and passive voice to them. I haven't anyone seen do this, so I won't talk about linking verbs.
But what about intransitive verbs? Let's look at the semantics, here:
a) The glass broke.
b) Pete sang.
Is the "glass" in (a) really an agent in the way that "Pete" is in (b)? We might say that "breaking" is a process that the window undergoes. We could easily imagine an agent doing the breaking, say "Pete broke the glass."b) Pete sang.
It seems, then, that (a) lacks an agent; the subject is an "experiencer". [If you wish to read up on the distinction: linguists call (a) unaccusative verbs and (b) unergative verbs.]
My own intuition is that verbs like "sing" can usefully be analysed as active, while words like "broke" can't. Some grammarians posit a "middle voice" for verbs like (a), a voice where the grammatical subject undergoes a change. Notice the difference betwee:
- Wine glasses break easily.
- Wine glasses are easily broken.
To me, the passive voice sentence implies agency; the "middle voice" sentence doesn't. However, wine glasses, I think, have the same status on the "agent/patient" continuum. I don't think that the wine glasses are any more active in the former sentence than in the latter. A lot depends on context. When would you use the former? When the latter?- Wine glasses are easily broken.
But that's not the extent of it. Take a word like "kiss".
There is a (rare) intransitive use:
In my life I kissed and fought and ate and slept. I have no regrets.
But mostly "kiss" is a transitive verb:
Linda kissed Bill. --> Bill was kissed by Linda.
However, consider this sentence:
Linda and Bill kissed each other. --> NOT: Each other was kissed by Linda and Bill.
Notice that the direct object slot is taken by a dummy slot: "each other". "Each other" is a marker for reciprocity. The meaning is "Linda kissed Bill and Bill kissed Linda." The compound subject contains both agents and patients. This becomes even more obvious if you take:
Linda and Bill kissed.
Reciprocity is no longer expressed. Semantically, the verb could be said to be in the "reciprocal voice", here, but that's a property of the lexical verb; it's not grammaticaly expressed. Compare:
Linda and Bill kissed each other. --> Linda and Bill kissed.
Linda and Bill hit each other. --> NOT: Linda and Bill hit.
Reciprocity also works with prepositional objects, even when passive voice is questionable:Linda and Bill hit each other. --> NOT: Linda and Bill hit.
Linda collided with Bill.
UNSURE: Bill was collided with.
Linda and Bill collided with each other.
Linda and Bill collided.
Notice that - in English - it is not possible to express reciprocity and still emphasise one of the agents. You have to say:UNSURE: Bill was collided with.
Linda and Bill collided with each other.
Linda and Bill collided.
Linda kissed Bill, and Bill kissed her back.
If English had a reciprocal voice the second sentence would not be necessary). You could simply express reciprocity through the verb form and leave the second clause off.
As it is, the only voice that English expresses explicitly is the "passive voice". The point here is to show that saying "Use the Active Voice" is not the same as "Don't Use the Passive Voice", and that it's not immediately clear what the person who spouts this rule means.
Yes, I'm heading towards Strunk's Elements of Style. (I'm using the old original because it's available online for free. The only difference I found for the purpose here is one example - "the sound of the falls" have been replaced by "the cock's crow".)
Use the Active Voice
As I said above this is not the same as "Don't Use the Passive Voice". It's potentially a broader rule, and I think that Strunk does make that broader rule. It's not immediately apparant, though. He starts off comparing active and passive voice:
The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive. (See link)
At this point he merely talks about that distinction. He then goes on by talking about the passive voice as inferior, talking about the passive voice being "less concise", and the omission of the agent as "indefinite". He then goes on to show how the need to make a specific referent the subject of the sentence determines voice.
But then he switches track, talking about the "habitual use of the active voice". We get the following sentence:
Many a tame sentence of description or exposition can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as there is, or could be heard. (see link)
Notice the "transitive in the active voice"? The four examples that follow include only two passive verbs ("could be heard", "became impaired"). Only the "could be heard" was the prime focus of the sentence. Most of the sentences contain "was" - a linking verb.
Personally, I think Strunk's point would have been clearer if he had worked with "minimal pairs": sentences that only differ in the one aspect that he means to change. But basically Strunk's making up wordy sentences and replacing them with more concise ones. He didn't do this, so I think he's not talking about "grammatical issues" at all, but about compositional principles:
Strunk thinks that many wordy sentneces can be re-written if you organise them around a single transitive verb. This makes (limited) sense, because transitive verbs have both a subject and an object, and thus allow to get rid of much "filler" (such as prepositions: "lying on the ground" --> "covered the ground").
So basically the passive voice makes you use more words, as it is a periphrastic construction, and it may require you to account for the agent that the passive voice tends to leave out.
As a tool, this is valuable methodology. But it's stated in categorical terms, and causes confusion because it focuses for long stretches about the active vs. passive distinction, and then uses linking verb constructions without comment (apart from the quoted sentences above).
But is this all? Why is the passive voice so prominent then? Is there something else, something implied? The idea of having something done to a subject, rather than than having the subject do something? A semantic, an ideological subcurrent that "victims" aren't worth talking about?
Is there a feeling that word magicians make the subject of a sentence seem more vigorous by using the active voice? That "I experienced defeat," is somewhat more appealing than "I was defeated"? (Notice that this is, again, different from "X defeated me." It's not a simple conversion methodology if I understand right.)
So why is the passive voice passive? To me, it was always just another grammatical structure that can be used in all the wrong places. Should we really construct most of our sentences around the unmarked transitive paradigm? Would this improve our writing?
"It hasn't rained for weeks." --> "Rain hasn't doused our fields in weeks."
I wonder.
Any thoughts?