Question about grammar...

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I wasn't sure where to put this so feel free to move it if it isn't appropriate here.

My question concerns active vs. passive sentences and I would love to hear from other writers or anyone with a better grasp of grammar than myself (which probably includes most everyone on this board).

Over the past few months, I’ve read a number of books on how to improve writing skills. One of the things that seem to pop up most frequently is that passive sentences seem to be universally frowned upon. Microsoft Word even has a handy little feature that gives you a percentage of how many passive sentences you have used.

And yet, for some reason, I have a really hard time spotting them in what I write. I’ve read numerous explanations of what they are but something just isn’t clicking in my brain.

For those who have a good grasp of them, I have a few questions.

First, are there any tips you could offer that might help me improve my writing in this area or make the concept of passive sentences clearer to me?

Second, what are your opinions of passive sentences? Do you loathe seeing them, as so many authors attest?

Lastly, I know this is arbitrary but do you think that there are a percentage of passive sentences that are acceptable? Should the goal be to remove them completely or do they have their place?

Any and all insight into this somewhat perplexing dilemma would be helpful and appreciated.

PS: According to Word, the percentage of passive sentences in this post is 8%.

[Alex]

Disapproval of the passive voice is a relativley recent phenemenon (frequently, and mistakenly, attributed to George Orwell and a political tract of his) and the appropriate response to anybody who tries to enforce it is: go suck an egg.


But essentially if you want active voice that means the subject of the sentence is doing the action. In passive, the subject of the sentence has the action done unto them.

The cat ate me. Active. The cat (subject) performs the verb phrase (ate).

I was eaten by the cat. Passive. I (subject) am the recipient of the verb phrase (was eaten).

Generally, if your verb has an associated conjugation of "to be" then you are probably using passive voice.

I am being killed ...
I was killed ...
I will be killed ...
They were killed ...
We have been killed ...

All passive as the actor is not the subject. The solution is to generally turn the sentence around.

... killed me.
... killed us.
... killed them.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, first-off, what exactly is a passive sentence, and what makes it passive?

I happen to be a very good writer (if I do say so myself), but I don't know the names of gramatical constructs. I have a mastery of the subject, but not of the jargon needed to teach the subject.


Edited to add: Um, thanks Alex ... and, er, nevermind, I guess.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The basics of passive voice:

Essentially, whenever the subject of the sentence is NOT the doer of the verb, you're in passive voice.

example: The car was driven by Johnny = passive voice because the subject is "the car", but the verb ("driven") is being done by the object ("Johnny")

example 2: Jane drove the car = active voice

Personally, while writing does tend to sound better when it's avoided, I don't see a need to be fanatical about it. It's worth taking a look at and seeing if you can come up with an active way to say something, but if you have to do gramatical calisthenics to wrap the sentence around it when passive voice will give you a clean, suscinct option, don't worry about it.

And no, I wouldn't put a percentage on it. If the best option for a sentence is passive, leave it passive.

[Alex]

And to clarify, the to be conjugation with the verb is not always a sign of passive voice, you have to rely on who is doing what to whom, but it tends to be a hint.

I am going to the store.
They are killing us.

Both of those are active.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oops. The post I just wrote was being written by me during the time when the post by Alex was being posted by him.* Sorry for the repeat info.

That would be a case where passive voice = bad

[innerSpaceman]

The concept that there should be a percentage of active vs. passive sentences, or that one or another should be avoided ... is moronic on its face to me.

Writing is writing. It's whatever is appropriate, in the author's opinion, to the moment. What you need to write well is an ear, not some ditzy formula.




And yes, apparently GD, Alex and I were all posting at the same time. Wow, a hot grammar topic!!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Writing is writing. It's whatever is appropriate, in the author's opinion, to the moment. What you need to write well is an ear, not some ditzy formula.
This is very true, but it IS good to know some of the technical reasons WHY something doesn't sound right. It's one thing to read something and think, "Gosh, that sounds clunky and amateurish." It's another to know how to go about fixing it. Reducing the ammount of passive voice is a good tool to have on the toolbelt.

[Alex]

For the record, when you write for someplace with a standard styleguide they will usually prohibit passive voice to a stupid degree. Here is a recent Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003611.html) (a great blog by the way by descriptivist, rather than prescriptivist, linguists) post about how the "... for Dummies" series prohibits all passive voice and it lead to a stupid situation.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Thanks for the insight.

In simple sentences, I can tell whether they are active or passive. The longer the sentence, the more apt I am to get confused.

I've written things that looked perfectly acceptable to me, only to have Word tell me after the fact that 25% of my sentences are passive, which certainly makes it seem as if I'm not paying enough attention to them.

Perhaps, as some suggest, I'm making a bigger deal of them than is necessary. Still, if I am going to go around breaking rules, I would prefer to have a firm grasp on what I am breaking and why. :)

Thanks for the input so far.

[Ghoulish Delight]

For the record, when you write for someplace with a standard styleguide they will usually prohibit passive voice to a stupid degree. Here is a recent Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003611.html) (a great blog by the way by descriptivist, rather than prescriptivist, linguists)"Deliciously"? Me thinks these folks are a bit too into grammar.

[Alex]

These folks are academic linguistics professors and researchers so I imagine they are way too far into it.

But it is a good blog if a bit technical at times, particularly when they talk about etymology and word choice shifts.

MBC, can you post sample sentences that confuse you as to why they're in passive? Keep in mind, as well, that Word is not a perfect grammarian and it may get confused as well as to how you're really using a word compared to how it thinks you are.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The concept that there should be a percentage of active vs. passive sentences, or that one or another should be avoided ... is moronic on its face to me.


As far as percentages go, I didn't necessarily mean it in the literal sense, as if I should be striving for 6% and anything written that exceeds it is automatically garbage. Rather, I'm just trying to get a feel for for what a reasonable balance between the two should be.

Interestingly enough, when it comes to music, an area in which I do have a firm grasp of "the rules", I spend a lot of time breaking them and look upon most of them as silly. I trust my ear to tell me what sounds acceptable and what doesn't at this point. However, when something sounds wrong to me, I generally know why.

And that is the purpose of my post (upon more reflection), not to truly define what is acceptable or not, I suppose, but rather learn a bit more about the "why and why not" so that I can improve. I do understand that it all has to be taken with a grain of salt and that, ultimately, it is about how the words sound and how clearly they convey the message, that is important.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

MBC, can you post sample sentences that confuse you as to why they're in passive? Keep in mind, as well, that Word is not a perfect grammarian and it may get confused as well as to how you're really using a word compared to how it thinks you are.

I suppose we could take my original post for starters. I'm not seeing the eight percent. :)

[Ghoulish Delight]

One of the things that seem to pop up most frequently is that passive sentences seem to be universally frowned upon For starters, Word's probably catching this one. "Passive sentences" is the subject of the clause at the end*, while there is an implied object that is the actor the verb "frowned".

Is there a better way to say it? There are definitely alternate ways, though in this case that use may be preferable from the standpoint that it's a common usage and you're likely trying to draw on the familiarity of it.






*subordinate clause. Geez, that was bugging me Strike that (oh wait, I just did). Re-read, and the first half of the sentence is actually subordinate.

[Prudence]

The passive voice thing can be a major PITA.

As with so many things, it's a stylistic issue and therefore very context-dependant. It's not an evil in the same vein as noun-verb agreement, although that is frequently how it is presented nowadays.

In some contexts (maybe technical reports, for an example?) passive voice is nealy unavoidable. On the other hand, if I'm doing a formal persuasive piece the active voice can be more compelling.

And perhaps the most important reason to distinguish between the two is when it affects the bottom line. If your ability to continue to receive a pay check is directly affected by your use of active over passive voice, then active voice is your new best friend.

[Prudence]

Ask Betty (http://depts.washington.edu/engl/askbetty/passive_active.php) is a new UW site that addresses grammar issues. I think you have to have a UW login to ask a specific question, but the info posted is available to all. The link above is to the passive/active voice page. I just checked it out and I approve of their take. Not that they need my approval, but there it is.

[Alex]

Well, there are only 14 sentences in that post (15 counting the PS) so 8% is 1.12 sentences. Presumably the 8% is rounded and there is actually on passive voice sentence. So it really isn't as bad as you were probably thinking.

[JWBear]

As far as percentages go, I didn't necessarily mean it in the literal sense, as if I should be striving for 6% and anything written that exceeds it is automatically garbage. Rather, I'm just trying to get a feel for for what a reasonable balance between the two should be.

There is none, IMO. As long as you are transmitting your ideas clearly and succinctly, I don’t think it matters. If something is easier for the reader to comprehend written in 100% passive voice, then do so. Writing by formula is rarely successful.


ETA: That paragraph has no passive sentances, BTW ;)

[Alex]

Is there a better way to say it? There are definitely alternate ways, though in this case that use may be preferable from the standpoint that it's a common usage and you're likely trying to draw on the familiarity of it.
The problem with active voice at all times is that it pretty much requires that the actor be made explicit rather than implied as it in this sentence. And sometimes that creates more specificity than you want. But one way to rewrite the sentence could be

One of the things that seem to pop up most frequently is that experts universally frown upon passive sentences.
From style issues I would also tend to avoid constructions like "seems to be" which you used twice in the original sentence and feels like passive voice (subject seems to actor) but I'm not entirely confident it actually is passive. Take responsibility for your conclustions.

One of the things popping up most frequently is that experts universally frown on passive sentences.
That is the most frequent complaint about passive, particularly in what is supposed to be persuasive writing. That is allows the speaker to hedge, shuffling off responsibility for thoughts and actions.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Yep, I see your point and appreciate the input.

[€uroMeinke]

Bare in mind, MS Word is a product intended for use in writting for "business" nd not necessarily the next great American novel. Active voice is currently encouraged in the Corporate world because it quickly identifies responsibility, causality, and makes it easier to take action compared to the fuzzyness of the passive voice. On the other hand, passive voice is just the thing you need in the Corporate world to avoid blame, fingerpointing, and regressive office politics - so there's a fine line to draw there as to when to use it.

Personally the MS Grammer Checker's ability to pick out Passive Voice sentences is a pet peeve of mind, especially when it results in my boss requesting things be rewritten (something must be wrong if there's a green underline). Usually though, the problem is rectified by using his name as the subject in disputted the sentence.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Quickie - I use passive voice all the time and used to get busted for it in school a lot.

I am very bad at telling when I do and don't use it. I only catch it when it's overly obvious. Even then I usually just tell the picky grammarians to suck it. Oftentimes passive sounds better to me; it depends on the application.

I never liked technical grammar rules. I can't translate them to reality and tell you why a sentence sounds well put together or not. It just does or doesn't. I spell this way as well. "I" before "E" yadda yadda - does it look right?