Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
Again quoting from the third edition (but the admonishment has persisted) of the CBE Style Manual (page 6): Avoid the 'passive of modesty,' a favorite device of writers who shun the first person singular. The authors devote a whole paragraph to explaining why. Further down in the paragraph they state: 'I' may embarrass the writer, but it is less likely to be ambiguous. Look up the instructions to authors for the journals published by ESA or any other scholarly organization in our field, or simply consult publications in those journals to satisfy yourself on this matter. David On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog, Perceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
They aren't opposed to using the passive voice. They are opposed to using it when it is not the best choice. Why would I startle the reader, when it communicates the intended information better than an ambiguous anonymity would? On the same page where the CBE writers advise using first person active where appropriate, they also state: Although frequently misused and abused, the passive voice has justifiable functions in technical writing. They then present several appropriate examples. Further along, they write: The passive voice may sometimes help you avoid an unnecessary and perhaps awkward change of subject. They follow this again with appropriate examples. I think the authors of the manual were opposed to ambiguity and lack of clarity, and were in favor of crisp, clear, easily understood writing. I think that is the reason that the manual has become the style guide of choice for much of scientific writing, and is no longer restricted to biology. David McNeely On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I wonder why the writers of the CBE Style Manual are opposed to using the passive voice. Is it the usual Strunk White stuff? It's interesting that they say 'I' may embarrass the writer, but not, 'I' may startle the reader. There's an excellent article on The Passive in Technical and Scientific Writing at . You might also want to check out the Language Log piece, How long have we been avoiding the passive and why? The essay in which Orwell recommends avoiding passives itself has 20% passives! Language Log, a blog run by linguists, is generally excellent on the topic of passives. See (material posted since April 8, 2008) and (prior to that). Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:28 PM, wrote: Again quoting from the third edition (but the admonishment has persisted) of the CBE Style Manual (page 6): Avoid the 'passive of modesty,' a favorite device of writers who shun the first person singular. The authors devote a whole paragraph to explaining why. Further down in the paragraph they state: 'I' may embarrass the writer, but it is less likely to be ambiguous. Look up the instructions to authors for the journals published by ESA or any other scholarly organization in our field, or simply consult publications in those journals to satisfy yourself on this matter. David On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog, Perceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
I wonder why the writers of the CBE Style Manual are opposed to using the passive voice. Is it the usual Strunk White stuff? It's interesting that they say 'I' may embarrass the writer, but not, 'I' may startle the reader. There's an excellent article on The Passive in Technical and Scientific Writing at http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V2_Rodman.htm. You might also want to check out the Language Log piece, How long have we been avoiding the passive and why? http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003380.html The essay in which Orwell recommends avoiding passives itself has 20% passives! Language Log, a blog run by linguists, is generally excellent on the topic of passives. See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=54 (material posted since April 8, 2008) and http://tinyurl.com/yldaltf (prior to that). Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:28 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Again quoting from the third edition (but the admonishment has persisted) of the CBE Style Manual (page 6): Avoid the 'passive of modesty,' a favorite device of writers who shun the first person singular. The authors devote a whole paragraph to explaining why. Further down in the paragraph they state: 'I' may embarrass the writer, but it is less likely to be ambiguous. Look up the instructions to authors for the journals published by ESA or any other scholarly organization in our field, or simply consult publications in those journals to satisfy yourself on this matter. David On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog, Perceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
[ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert
