There are, in fact, legitimate arguments to be made both for and against the passive voice. A short police report in a local newspaper may be worded like this:A search was conducted of the apartment. Three loaded weapons were discovered between the mattresses and in the bottom drawer of a dresser. All three suspects were transported to the PD and advised of their rights. After waiving their rights, the suspects admitted they had received the guns from a friend, and it was determined they knew the guns were stolen.
It is obvious who conducted the search, found the weapons, transported the suspects to the PD, advised them of their rights and determined that the guns were plunder. Hence, nothing of importance would be added to this brief report and it also would be rather redundant if every sentence began with “police officers” conducted etc. For a similar reason, the Declaration of Independence declares “that all men are created equal.” For the Founding Fathers it was beyond any doubt that all human beings are created and “endowed with certain unalienable Rights” by their Creator .
In "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell states as one of his principal rules of composition, "Never use the passive where you can use the active." However, the passive voice often is utilized as a great self-protective strategy because with its aid any responsibility for actions taken can be avoided. Had the passive voice not been around since ancient times, politicians would have had to invent it. It serves them too well.
FDR in his first inaugural speech insisted that "the joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits" before five times asserting that "it can be helped." Somehow somebody obviously had to be reminded of labor's joy and moral stimulation. The people? Most likely, but clearly saying so might not have been perceived well by an audience that had to endure the consequences of the Great Depression and an unemployment rate of a whopping 25%. And who is it who can help it? The government, one might assume. Yet, clearly pronouncing this would have meant clearly being committed to drastic changes.
About thirty years later, JFK's inaugural seemed to shed some light on this question of commitment for "there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures." These words suggest that the president will be personally engaged – until he moves on to the question of war and peace, saying that "only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." The passive voice now distracts from the speaker's role as the one who in fact will or will not deploy those weapons.
Ronald Reagan in 1981 takes the baton and nobly hails the victims of previous armed conflicts and "the sacrifice that so many thousands were called upon to make." Once more, some undisclosed entity had called for sacrifices, and the speaker – or better the government he embodies – is not personally responsible for deaths or damages.
Fast forward twenty years: George W. Bush, too, believed that "Americans are called upon" to do something, this time, however, not so much to make a sacrifice but to enact the promise that "everyone deserves a chance." However, it was another passive sentence for which he was lambasted, the notorious "Mistakes have been made." Beth Quinn disapproved of it because the passive voice “places the emphasis on the object of the sentence, not the subject.” Not so. The sentence in question does not even contain an object. What this sentence, and any passive sentence, does is placing the emphasis on the deed instead of the doer. “An active version would be, I made some mistakes. That way, it's clear [whose] very own self is to blame. But no. We just have some vague acknowledgment on the part of The Decider (who apparently is not The Mistaker) that somehow, who knows how, [something] has been less than stellar.” So far, Beth Quinn is perfectly right, but what follows is rather less than stellar. “Saying that mistakes have been made is like saying, the house caught fire. It’s as though the house is somehow to blame for burning up. See?” No, I don’t. After all, objects can in fact catch fire without a particular person being responsible for it. Wood can catch fire from a match, obviously, but also from focused light, friction, lightning, or something else that is already burning. Thus “The house caught fire” is a sentence in active voice leaving it completely open whether the fire was an accident or arson. Passive voice would say, “The house was set on fire,” implying but not declaring a guilty party.
Beth Quinn then offers “some more examples of passive voice, offered so I can stick to my one point and really drive that point home.” Well, don’t drive so fast: “The gun went off. (As I'm sure you know, guns do this on their own all the time.)” Not passive voice! Yes, it omits the person who pulled the trigger, but again accidents happen. In the passive voice, the sentence would read, “The gun was fired,” indicating that it was not an accident although the identity of the perpetrator has not been established yet.
“And one more, taken from an incident at the White House a few years ago: The pretzel got lodged in President Bush's throat. (Clearly, it was the pretzel's fault for getting stuck where it was unwelcome.)” Right! Soft pretzels would have been a better choice. They are easier to swallow and are much more versatile since they can be eaten with everything from mustard to chocolate.
Well, the president obviously made a mistake here, but let’s move forward and not get stuck in Pretzel Logic. After all, "Our union can be perfected" (B. Obama in Chicago, 11/4/08).
So, what is this contentious passive voice?
In the passive, the object of the verb becomes the subject: Columbus discovered America in 1492 becomes America was discovered by Columbus in 1492. The subject of the active sentence (Columbus) becomes the agent (by Columbus) in the passive sentence.
A sentence in the passive voice is constructed of
The subject = the receiver of the action_________Amercia
+ a form of to be followed by a past participle____ was discovered
[+ the doer or agent performing the action]______[by Columbus] in 1492.
The passive often is used without mentioning the agent because it is either unknown or of no importance who performed the deed. America was discovered in 1492 focuses the attention on the event (the discovery of a new continent) rather than on the person who discovered this continent.
In informal English, the passive can be formed using to get (He got married).
The stative passive describes a status or condition, which may exist over a period of time, rather than an action. It is formed with with a form of the verb to be + a past participle, which functions more or less as an adjective {The window is closed (participle)./ The window is open (adjective).}
Many stative passive verbs are followed by prepositions other than by (Azar, English Grammar):
accustomed to, acquainted with, addicted to, annoyed with, by, associated with, bored with/by, cluttered with, composed of, concerned about, connected to, coordinated with, covered with, crowded with, dedicated to, devoted to, disappointed in/with, discriminated against, divorced from, done with, dressed in, engaged to, equipped with, excited about, opposed to, exhausted from, exposed to, filled with, finished with, frightened of/by, gone from, interested in, involved in, known for, limited to, located in, made of, married to, opposed to, pleased with, prepared for, protected from, provided with, qualified for, related to, remembered for, satisfied with, scared of/by, terrified of/by, tired of/from, worried about
No comments:
Post a Comment