Is the passive voice really passive?

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
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)

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.

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."

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?

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 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:

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?
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Thanks so much for your interesting essay. Strunk and White gave various kinds of advice, but I think the Prime Directive was to use the active voice; it's the one folks seem to quote the most. (I've got the "cock's crow" edition--page 34.) However, as you have so well laid out, "use the active voice" is as problematic a rule as "show, don't tell." As you say, commanding writers to avoid the passive is an easier way to put it because of the slipperiness of what the active voice actually is.

When I read a passage heavily laden with passive sentences I notice first a subjective feeling of slogging through deep mud even before I notice all the passive sentences. The writing really does feel sluggish. Every now and then, though, a good writer carefully uses a passive construction for effect. For one thing, it slows the pace. For another, it emphasizes those times when things just happen without an obvious agent causing them. To me, it's the paraphrastic nature how English uses the passive voice that makes it interesting. If we just had an inflected verb form for it the language might be easier, but less interesting.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
When I read a passage heavily laden with passive sentences I notice first a subjective feeling of slogging through deep mud even before I notice all the passive sentences. The writing really does feel sluggish.


That's quite interesting, because I can't remember ever having that feeling. I first encountered the anti-passive sentiment online, and, quite frankly, it surprised me. I've read lots of literature, and I find that a high passive voice ratio is rare, anyway.

It's somewhat more common in scientific writings and specialised literature, but I never minded that, either.

Every now and then, though, a good writer carefully uses a passive construction for effect. For one thing, it slows the pace. For another, it emphasizes those times when things just happen without an obvious agent causing them.

I wonder how many passives go unnoticed.

To me, it's the paraphrastic nature how English uses the passive voice that makes it interesting. If we just had an inflected verb form for it the language might be easier, but less interesting.

They were married in church. // They've been married for three years now.

Participle: adjective or verb? Hehe.

***

But what about linking verbs? Intransitive verbs? How do prepositional phrases change the dynamics of the verb?

Writers can be creative with word classes, too:

She laughed and laughed and laughed, and eventually she laughed him out of the room.
What happens when we do things like this?
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I'm not a linguist. Part of my aversion to the passive is that I spend my days with people who often speak and write in weirdly passive (and pompous) circumlocutions. Here's an example: "It was felt appropriate to start the patient on drug X." Nobody wants to take responsibility for doing things. In my days as a scientist, of course, I wrote in the passive voice like everyone else in that world; if you didn't write that way an editor would change it.

I think you're correct that much of the sort of sly passive goes unnoticed by readers (see? I just slipped one in there).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 42

Passive voice, or, to be more specific the use of passive voice constructions in writing, is not inherently "wrong," or evil.

Sometimes you want to use passive voice, and there are times when it should be used--typically when the person or thing performing the action of the main verb is unknown--this is often the case in scientific, technical, or sociological writing.

In general, yes, I think active voice, and relying on a close syntatical connection between subject and main verb is both clearer and more persuasive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
One thing often overlooked, I think, is that a steady diet of active voice has its own stylistic problems. A few passive sentences thrown in here and there can have a wonderful leavening effect and result in balanced and attractive prose.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Here's an example: "It was felt appropriate to start the patient on drug X."

Oh my. Does this occur in spontaneous speech?

Medievalist said:
In general, yes, I think active voice, and relying on a close syntatical connection between subject and main verb is both clearer and more persuasive.

You must be tired of passive voice threads. ;)

May I ask what you mean by "close syntactical connection between subject and main verb"?

rugcat said:
One thing often overlooked, I think, is that a steady diet of active voice has its own stylistic problems. A few passive sentences thrown in here and there can have a wonderful leavening effect and result in balanced and attractive prose.

I tend to agree with that, with the stipulation that there's enough variety in the verbs that you can leave off the passive voice entirely with little detrimental effect.

***

A huge simplification, but I generally think that your flow of ideas determines your subjects determines your voice. You can pretty much rephrase every sentence, but I see no reason, really.

You can be vague in both voices:

It was shown...
Studies have shown...
If you want to avoid responsibility, or if you're unsure and want to gloss over it, the passive voice is a very effective tool. You can't hold that against the voice, though. To the extent that people get suspicious about the passive voice, the insidious and clever will turn to other methods. [Notice how vague that is? ;) ]
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
That has not been unthought of.

Instant classic. :D

Looks like an adjective ("an unthought-of idea") but quacks like a verb ("haven't failed to think of"). Very interesting usage. Thanks.
 

Elaine Margarett

High and Dry
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
1,718
Reaction score
282
Location
chasing windmills
One thing often overlooked, I think, is that a steady diet of active voice has its own stylistic problems. A few passive sentences thrown in here and there can have a wonderful leavening effect and result in balanced and attractive prose.

Absolutely!

People are afraid of passive but used judicously it can add a welcomed balance to the text. It can also serve the purpose of placing the proper emphasis where you want it.

Someone used this example once..."The report cards were handed out." Okay...as written it's passive. Active would be "The teacher handed out the report cards."

But let's say the important idea (feeling; emphasis) you want to focus on, is not the teacher (unimportant), but the report card. Say, the exposition immediately prior to this is all about the handing out of the report cards. It's a looming event...something to be feared... the student is waiting, waiting, waiting for the moment of truth...and it comes...

The report cards were handed out.

I could have constructed this differently to avoid the passive constrution but in this case I made the stylistic choice to place all the emphasis on the report cards. The teacher is unimportant in this sense; it's the report cards that loom large and are important.

EM
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
But let's say the important idea (feeling; emphasis) you want to focus on, is not the teacher (unimportant), but the report card. Say, the exposition immediately prior to this is all about the handing out of the report cards. It's a looming event...something to be feared... the student is waiting, waiting, waiting for the moment of truth...and it comes...

The report cards were handed out.

I could have constructed this differently to avoid the passive constrution but in this case I made the stylistic choice to place all the emphasis on the report cards. The teacher is unimportant in this sense; it's the report cards that loom large and are important.

Excellent point, which leads straight back towards the thread I linked to in my original post. Focus and emphasis led to confusion, there.

Schweta said, "The passive construction shifts focus away from the entity doing the action."

I then countered with an example from a story by Michael Swanwick, where I thought the passive voice construction actually helped to place focus on the agent ("the entitiy doing an action") by affording it "sentence final position" (the phrase in question was: "were enforced by neural implants").

In a later post, I wondered whether we were actually talking about the same thing (so I asked - in my convoluted way :eek: ). Schweta replied that she was talking about "attentional focus", which didn't help me much since so was I.

The difference between our terms ("focus"), I've come to think since then, is that I was thinking in terms of composition, along the distinctions of given/new or theme/rheme. That is: (a) what am I talking about, and (b) what am I saying about (a). So, basically, you have grounding and focus. So if you have:

The boy kicked the ball.

you first set up the sentence (the boy - what about the boy?), then you comment on the set-up (kicked the ball). To my mind the "boy" provides the grounding for the ball-kicking. So "the boy" isn't really the focus of the sentence; the ball is more prominent. Of course, this is completely context-dependent:

Who kicked the ball? - The boy kicked the ball.

Now, "the boy" is the focus of the sentence. The "kicking of the ball" is given. (If you take away "kicked the ball", the question is still sufficiently answered.) So my approach was contextual, and I was arguing that you can use the passive voice to place the emphasis on the agent, by moving it from the un-emphasised subject position to the emphesised predicate position. The flipside of the argument: if you place the "new" element in the subject slot, you risk disrupting the flow of ideas. Let me repeat the Swanwick quote:

The Company had three rules. The first was No Violence. The second was Protect Company Equipment. The third was Protect Yourself. All three were enforced by neural implant.

And now the agent in the subject slot (bolding my changes):

The Company had three rules. The first was No Violence. The second was Protect Company Equipment. The third was Protect Yourself. Nural implants enforced all three.

Now, semantic emphasis and syntactic emphasis are at odds.

I'm not 100 % sure what Schweta meant to say, but I think she could have been referring to a property of the passive voice construction that linguists refer to as valency reduction, and what this does semantically. Valency - in linguistics - is the number of arguments a verb takes. So "The boy kicked the ball," "kicked" has a valency of 2, because both "the boy" and "the ball" are necessary to "complete" the verb. "The ball was kicked," has a valency of 1. Now, only "the ball" is necessary to complete the verb. "The boy" has become optional. So if you're reading "was kicked" your mind focuses the attention on "the ball", because that's the kind of argument you expect from "was kicked". In other words, "was kicked" makes you wonder what was kicked, not who did the kicking. The attention is shifted away from the entity doing the action. You can get away without ever mentioning it.

This is not incompatible with what I said, I think. My reply to this is: Precisely because you do not expect the agent as a necessary completion to the verb adding it as a prepositional phrase marks it for emphasis. It's a curious item. The agent is in a more prominent position than it would be in the active version. This is why it's also more critical to get it right. If it works with the flow of ideas it's a great effect (as it is in the Swanwick example), but if it doesn't work with the flow of ideas it is a disappointment.

To the sentence in question:

The report cards were handed out.

is (most likely) better than

The report cards were handed out by the teacher.

"By the teacher" may be new content syntactically (not mentioned before), but it's not new content semantically (who else would hand them out?) The flow of ideas has come to a stop after "out", and "by the teacher" is three words stating the obvious.

Swanwick's flow of ideas, on the other hand, was not finished after "enforced". You'd expect the company to enforce their rules in one way or another. Here you have your "stating the obvious" before the adjunct. Semantically, the most important information is the agent. Thus the passive voice has been used to emphasise the agent, rather than hide it. By Michael Swanwick, but knew that, didn't you? ;)
 

Deleted member 42

Oh my. Does this occur in spontaneous speech?



You must be tired of passive voice threads. ;)

I am heartily sick of them, truth be told.

I can explain it, with the aid of a projector and laptop, a blackboard or whiteboard, and a simple handout, to barely literate undergrads in under ten minutes, and they completely get it.

Writers though . . . ;)

May I ask what you mean by "close syntactical connection between subject and main verb"?

Passive voice constructions use a helping verb--usually a form of the copula/to be, and they typically do not have a clear nominative subject; a pronoun, or noun performing the action of a verb. Active constructions tend to have the subject and the verb close together; it's very clear who's doing what to whom . . .
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Passive voice constructions use a helping verb--usually a form of the copula/to be,

True, but also true of all grammatical aspect (perfect or continuous).

and they typically do not have a clear nominative subject; a pronoun, or noun performing the action of a verb.

I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding this. What definition of subject are you using? Does this have anything to do with English being an accusative language (treating the agent and subject alike, and the patient differently)? It's a bit difficult since English doesn't mark case. German, for example, marks the syntactic subject of the passive case with the nominative case; which makes the syntactic relation rather clear. English uses word order.

And what about the difference between:

a) I dropped the glass and broke it.
b) I dropped the glass and it broke.
c) I dropped the glass and it was broken.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
None of these is truly a passive construction.

"The glass was dropped by me and broken."

would be passive.

caw

The only one that contained a passive is c). "it was broken" is a passive construction. I think c) is rare, because of the availability of b), but I'd have to check.

Looking at Medievalists definition of "subject", I'd argue that only in a) the verb "to break" has a clear subject, b) is debatable (depending on whether breaking is considered an "action" that the glass "does", as opposed to a "process" that it "undergoes"), and c) has no subject at all. What I'm wondering is: how is this a syntactic, as opposed to a semantic concept?

To me, the subject of an action is not the same thing as the subject of a verb. Two different terms. I'm not sure how to make sense of that sort of "subject", in syntactic terms.

These points may sound like quibbles - but they may well help me understand why some people consider passives vague/passive and I don't.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I think to some degree you're confusing "subject" with "object". In general concept, a "subject" does something, an "object" has something done to it. If you say "X broke", X is the subject of the verb. If you say, "I broke X," X is the object of the verb. Neither is a passive construction. But if you say, "X was broken by me," you've essentially juxtaposed what should be an object for what should be a subject, and that is the heart of a passive construction.

Note that the passive construction nearly always requires a helping verb (in the case above, "was") and nearly always results in more words being used to express the idea. So, in general, if you can find ways of shortening a sentence, you'll tend to wind up with active constructions rather than passive ones.

That being said, there are situations where a passive construction might be more appropriate for the context of the writing than an active one would be. But that's a slim minority of situations.

caw
 
Last edited:

CaroGirl

Living the dream
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
8,368
Reaction score
2,327
Location
Bookstores
blacbird is right. "It was broken" is not a passive construction. The verb in the sentence is merely the past tense of "to be", which is not passive at all.

Passive constructions arise when the actor is not named because the actor is not known, or when something is acted upon by a named actor. As in: "The software application is launched", or "The software application is launched by the computer", or (not in passive voice) "The software application launches."

Clear as mud yet?
 

Ruv Draba

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,322
Sometimes you want to use passive voice, and there are times when it should be used--typically when the person or thing performing the action of the main verb is unknown--this is often the case in scientific, technical, or sociological writing.
Or it's known, and you don't want to assign blame or credit -- as is often the case in business and political writing.

(Or when you want to claim credit for another's ideas as in "that has not been unthought-of". :tongue)
 

Deleted member 42

I would argue that

The ball was kicked.

is an example of the passive voice, and that it is a passive construction.

John kicked the ball is an example of active voice, and an active construction

I would further argue that absolutes about passive voice are usually dangerous. Sometimes passive voice is absolutely appropriate. For instance, when you don't know who or what performed the action of the main verb:

The ball was kicked out of the yard, and across the street. It ended up in the curate's prize rose garden.

We never did determine who kicked it.

Or when someone wishes to avoid responsibility:

Mistakes may have been made (yes, subjunctive and passive are bff)

In certain kinds of writing--say, undergraduate freshman comp essays--you probably want to avoid using passive voice. The undergraduate freshman comp class, by the way, is the original audience, and still the primary audience, for Strunk and White's Elements of Style.
 

JoNightshade

has finally arrived
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
4,137
Website
www.ramseyhootman.com
Ummm, okay I am no linguist so I don't even feel remotely qualified to enter into this discussion, but I did want to jump in one one thing. The OP suggested that if there is a "passive voice," there must also be an "active voice" and perhaps other voices.

I don't think this is true, mainly because I am unable to recognize passive voice. I'm a professional writer/editor, but I "play by ear" in the sense that I can't quote you actual rules; I just know what's right and what's wrong and what sounds weird.

Yes, some passive sentences "sound weird" and should therefore be avoided. Some passive sentences slow down the narrative. However nothing about these sentences is inherently "incorrect" in terms of grammar. And if used in an appropriate way, passive voice is perfectly fine. This is true of "normal" or "active" sentences as well. So I would say that sentences themselves must be judged individually.

Anecdote: In college, my creative writing professor was one of those anti-passive-voice advocates. Every story I wrote would come back with one or two sentences completely scrawled out and "PASSIVE!" scribbled in the margin. I was NEVER ABLE TO UNDERSTAND what was wrong with these sentences. I literally could not comprehend why they were "wrong," since to me, in the context of the narrative, they sounded perfectly fine. Even after an explanation of what passive voice was, I didn't get it. I still don't get it, and most of the time I am unable to identify passive vs. active. Why was it so wrong to have one passive sentence out of 500?

So my point is, to someone whose grasp of grammar is completely intuitive, this distinction does not exist.
 

CaroGirl

Living the dream
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
8,368
Reaction score
2,327
Location
Bookstores
I would argue that

The ball was kicked.

is an example of the passive voice, and that it is a passive construction.

John kicked the ball is an example of active voice, and an active construction
I agree with everything you said, especially the above. The ball was kicked is definitely passive. It was broken, however, in isolation, isn't necessarily passive. It depends on the context. If you're saying, She dropped the figurine. It was broken. That's just a statement of fact (there it was, lying there broken) and not passive. If you say, The figurine was dropped and it was broken, then both halves of that sentence are passive because we know neither who did the dropping nor the breaking.

Of course, to ensure active voice all around, you should say, She dropped the figurine and it broke.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
In certain kinds of writing--say, undergraduate freshman comp essays--you probably want to avoid using passive voice. The undergraduate freshman comp class, by the way, is the original audience, and still the primary audience, for Strunk and White's Elements of Style.

So, basically, the reason not to use passive voice is to avoid a bad mark from an opinionated teacher? No more than that?


Caro Girl said:
blacbird is right. "It was broken" is not a passive construction. The verb in the sentence is merely the past tense of "to be", which is not passive at all.

Yes and no. The problem is that:

[Subject + linking verb:be + ajective:past participle] and [Subject + auxiliary verb:be + mainverb:past participle] look exactly the same.

Look at the vase! It's broken (in pieces, ect.).

vs.

What happened to your vase? / It was broken. / How? / I suspect the cat.

So, I'd argue that "She dropped the figurine and it was broken," is ambiguous, but that the availability of "She dropped the figurine and it broke," may make the interpretion of "was broken" as adjectival rather than verbal more likely.

Fine. Let's take another verb:

a) They sold 500 copies of my book.
b) My book sold 500 copies.
c) 500 copies of my book were sold.
The meaning, that is the state of affairs these sentences refer to, are the same.

In a) the subject is a dummy variable standing in for all the various agents who sold my book. "They" (bookstore owners, amazon, etc.) are both the syntactical subject and the semantic agent of the action of selling the book.

In b) the subject is "my book" and the "object" is "500 copies". But the "book" didn't literally stand around selling "500 copies" (of whatever). There is no semantic interpretation at all that allows the book to do anything. The meaning of the syntactically unmarked "sell" is passive. The agent is left out. Surely, somebody else did the selling, not the book.

In c) the subject is "500 copies of my book". It is the patient of the verb "were sold".

Only in (a) is the subject doing anything. In (b) the subject looks like it's doing something, but it isn't. In (c) the relationship between subject and object is expressed through a syntactic construction: the passive voice.

Note that (b) is syntactically active voice: The book does something to the copies. But there is a verbal construction that does not have the same structure:

My book sells well.
See how close this is to linking verbs like:

The food smells nice.
The difference is that verbs like intransitive "sell" take adverbs ("well") whereas linking verbs take adjectives ("nice"). But the agency question is similar in that neither the book nor the food actually do anything.

So I don't think I'm confusing subject and object. I think that subject/object of sentences and subject/object of actions are two different (though related) things.

blacbird said:
Note that the passive construction nearly always requires a helping verb (in the case above, "was") and nearly always results in more words being used to express the idea. So, in general, if you can find ways of shortening a sentence, you'll tend to wind up with active constructions rather than passive ones.

Yes, the verb usually expands; but then the agent is deleted, and depending on how many words are needed to describe the agent you may actually end up with fewer words. (If the verb's subject doesn't add anything to the sentence, it can be safely omitted, too.)

JoNightshade said:
The OP suggested that if there is a "passive voice," there must also be an "active voice" and perhaps other voices.

Actually, what I meant to suggest was that many people think that presence of passive voice must imply active voice but forget that - since active voice isn't marked - there may be other voices alongside the active voice that aren't marked either. In the case of Strunk, I meant to show that he's telling us to "use the active voice" without actually telling us what he thinks the "active voice" is. I think that this may be one of the sources of the confusion about what passive voice is, since - looking at Strunk's examples - "Use the active voice" is not synonymous with "Don't Use the Passive Voice", even though that's how the "rule" is usually read.

Sorry for being confusing (the above probably didn't help either), but I did post this in the theory section.

Anecdote: In college, my creative writing professor was one of those anti-passive-voice advocates. Every story I wrote would come back with one or two sentences completely scrawled out and "PASSIVE!" scribbled in the margin. I was NEVER ABLE TO UNDERSTAND what was wrong with these sentences. I literally could not comprehend why they were "wrong," since to me, in the context of the narrative, they sounded perfectly fine. Even after an explanation of what passive voice was, I didn't get it. I still don't get it, and most of the time I am unable to identify passive vs. active. Why was it so wrong to have one passive sentence out of 500?

I know what passive voice is, how to recognise it, and how to avoid it. I've never been able to understand what was wrong with it, either. That's why I made this thread in the first place (that, and because I said I would in the other thread).
 

CaroGirl

Living the dream
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
8,368
Reaction score
2,327
Location
Bookstores
I know what passive voice is, how to recognise it, and how to avoid it. I've never been able to understand what was wrong with it, either. That's why I made this thread in the first place (that, and because I said I would in the other thread).
Most of the time there is nothing wrong with the passive voice. It's a valid construction that allows writers to vary their sentence structures within a narrative. Overuse of passive voice in fiction, however, can distance a reader, slow the narrative and even be confusing.

I'm a technical writer. There is very little use for passive voice in technical writing (imo) because stating the actor (if known) in a given situation is important for clarity.