| First, let me thank everyone who filled the surveys out. I
got a pretty good response -- 31 total (including some I
passed out by hand).
Now, let me tell you what this was all about. I'm
currently writing a paper on prescriptive lingustics. This
is basically a methodology that looks at writing prescriptions
in a descriptive (i.e., linguistic) way. The methodology
goes someting like this:
1. Survey the prsecriptionists to see if you can come
up with some consensus
2. Look at actual usage to see if the prescription is
actually followed
3. Analyze the instances you found for the following
sociolinguistic variables:
o Field
o Purpose
o Audience
o Register (i.e., formal vs informal)
4. Analyze the instances for purely linguistic variables
(this can be pretty open-ended -- basically whatever you
can find to apply ... includes both traditional psycho-
linguistics and more discourse-level stuff)
5. Restate the prescription to account for any discrepancies
or revelations you encountered when going through the
above steps
I plan to use passive voice as an example prescription because
of several things: it's controversial, it's probably a good
example of hyper-correction, it's fairly easy to explain
linguistically and sociolinguistically.
So far, I have only completed the first step. Interestingly,
though, what I found seemed to be way off base from what I
expected. Basically, I expected all the grammarians to say
"never use the passive," "avoid the passive at all costs,"
"the passive is a commie plot," etc. Instead, I found them to
be pretty reasonable -- usually, they said "prefer the active
voice," "try to use active," etc., and then gave instances of
when using the passive was okay.
This didn't seem to gibe with the general feeling you get
around writers that the passive is sapping our vital juices,
is the end of civilization, etc. So, my next question was
to ask: is the guy out in the street as virulently anti-passive
as I always thought he was? -- this was the purpose of the
survey.
What I found from the survey wasn't what I expected either.
Only 6 respondents think the passive is a horrible abomination
and shouldn't be used ever. The remaining 22 (3 didn't know
what it was) generally followed the prescriptionists.
Of these, though, 5 listed reasons for using the passive that
were not in any of the grammarians (and which seemed kind of
home grown and kind of hard to follow to me). The remaining
17 took 2 tacks: 7 mentioned when you don't know who the agent
is, and 10 talked about when the object is more important than
the agent (in so many words).
So, perhaps, the problem is not that prescriptions concerning
the passive are unrealistic (as I originally thought), but that
the instances when you can use the passive are not real clear.
This is not helped by grammarians who talk about the different
voices being "weak," vigorous," "forceful, "strong," etc.
There are, in fact, much more functional reasons to use the
passive. One is when you don't know who the agent is, as
mentioned above. Another is related to the thing about the
object being more important than the agent. This would be a
lot more understandable, however, if it was put in a discourse
context, and brought in things like Functional Sentence
Perspective, given/new information, etc. (I'll go over this
stuff in another note if anybody's interested).
The percentage questions also gave me some interesting feedback.
Passive is typically used about 20% of the time in written
English. Interestingly, though, the average response here was
55%. This tells me that people are probably hyper-aware of the
passive. Not sure why (I'll try to research this a little
more later), but it does tell me that something fishy is going
on.
Thanks again for filling out the surveys. I'll now open this
note to discussion of anything you all want. I'll try to
enter some more notes on further research.
-- Cliff
|
| I have heard an explanation of the execration of passive voice in
technical writing (as opposed to all the other execrations of p.v.).
Back in the 30s and 40s, when technical writing as we know it was
being born, the armed services *required* that all manuals be written
in the passive voice. You can imagine the reader-torture that resulted
from that rule. Hence, in more modern views of technical writing,
such as the little yellow pamphlet all new writers at DEC are given,
the p.v. is denounced as unnatural, etc.
I never think about it, but I use it all the time. Things are always
happening *to* things in this environment, and you don't want to
be always writing: "The Executive does this . . . " and "The Executive
does that . . . "
I was pleasantly surprised by the results you got. I'm sorry I missed
the chance to answer the survey.
|
| Another interesting historical theory relates to the scientific
method. Because the scientific method emphasizes replicability
(i.e., anyone should be able to do the same experiment and get
the same result), the subject is deemphasized. This is why
procedures in academic articles, textbooks, etc. have so much
passive voice: "a culture was taken," "15 subjects were used,"
"a concentration of XYZ is titrated," etc.
How this relates to tech writing, though, is a little more
interesting ... and less functional. This is mainly a matter of
sociolinguistics. Basically, many years ago, technology did not
have as much prestige as pure science. In order to get some of
that prestige, engineers and applied scientists tried to ape
scientists. One of the ways they did this was to use the same
language -- i.e., things like passive voice, latinate
terminology, etc.
-- Cliff
|