meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
syntactic_considerations [2018/08/21 11:31] 127.0.0.1 external edit |
syntactic_considerations [2019/08/08 10:55] (current) lisa.illgen_concentrix.com Added Anchor Links |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * // A payment was made (passive voice with no subject) // | * // A payment was made (passive voice with no subject) // | ||
| - | Why should we generally prefer active voice? Look around and you'll notice that the more scholarly and formal a publication is, the more loaded with passive voice it tends to be. Passive voice can lead to wordier, weaker writing—passive sentences rewritten as active can be as much as 40% shorter. Passive voice is vague, especially when the subject of the sentence doesn’t appear at all—so the writing sounds evasive, avoiding responsibility. Overuse of passive voice can cause readers to lose interest. Readers prefer documentation with reduced use of passive voice (Lewis, 2006). Furthermore, there is scientific evidence that supports the commonly given advice against the use of passive voice. Research in psycholinguistics and human factors has consistently shown that it is harder for people to extract the meaning from a passive sentence relative to its active counterpart (Broadbent, 1977; Ferreira, 2003; Garrett, 1990; Miller, 1962)—possibly taking 25% longer to understand a sentence expressed in passive voice (Bailey, 1989). Listeners appear to use different brain pathways when processing active and passive sentences—patients with Broca’s aphasia (due to a specific type of damage to the left hemisphere) can accurately interpret active sentences but cannot accurately interpret passive (Zurif, 1990; Berndt, Mitchum, Burton, & Haendiges, 2004). Thus, for instructional or informational messages (or technical writing in general), the best way to convey the information is with active voice. | + | Why should we generally prefer active voice? Look around and you'll notice that the more scholarly and formal a publication is, the more loaded with passive voice it tends to be. Passive voice can lead to wordier, weaker writing—passive sentences rewritten as active can be as much as 40% shorter. Passive voice is vague, especially when the subject of the sentence doesn’t appear at all—so the writing sounds evasive, avoiding responsibility. Overuse of passive voice can cause readers to lose interest. Readers prefer documentation with reduced use of passive voice ([[references#lewis2006|Lewis, 2006]]). Furthermore, there is scientific evidence that supports the commonly given advice against the use of passive voice. Research in psycholinguistics and human factors has consistently shown that it is harder for people to extract the meaning from a passive sentence relative to its active counterpart ([[references#broadbent|Broadbent, 1977]]; [[references#ferreira|Ferreira, 2003]]; [[references#garrett|Garrett, 1990]]; [[references#miller1962|Miller, 1962]])—possibly taking 25% longer to understand a sentence expressed in passive voice ([[references#bailey|Bailey, 1989]]). Listeners appear to use different brain pathways when processing active and passive sentences—patients with Broca’s aphasia (due to a specific type of damage to the left hemisphere) can accurately interpret active sentences but cannot accurately interpret passive ([[references#zurif|Zurif, 1990]]; [[references#berndt|Berndt, Mitchum, Burton, & Haendiges, 2004]]). Thus, for instructional or informational messages (or technical writing in general), the best way to convey the information is with active voice. |
| - | There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, especially when designing conversational and/or customer service dialogs. Conversation does not take place in a vacuum. There must be at least two participants, and as soon as you have two entities talking to one another, you have a social situation. Suppose two people are working together to solve a puzzle. The way they speak to one another will differ if they are parent and child, siblings, close friends, distant acquaintances, co-workers, or worker and manager. The various ways in which we address one another reflect our social relationships. Slang and jargon can establish who is in and who is out of different social groups (Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 1998). Another aspect of social consideration in conversation is the directness of a request. Consider the following: | + | There are, however, some exceptions to this rule, especially when designing conversational and/or customer service dialogs. Conversation does not take place in a vacuum. There must be at least two participants, and as soon as you have two entities talking to one another, you have a social situation. Suppose two people are working together to solve a puzzle. The way they speak to one another will differ if they are parent and child, siblings, close friends, distant acquaintances, co-workers, or worker and manager. The various ways in which we address one another reflect our social relationships. Slang and jargon can establish who is in and who is out of different social groups ([[references#fromkin|Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 1998]]). Another aspect of social consideration in conversation is the directness of a request. Consider the following: |
| * // Pour me a cup of coffee. // | * // Pour me a cup of coffee. // | ||
| * // Please pour me a cup of coffee. // | * // Please pour me a cup of coffee. // | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| * // Is there any more coffee? // | * // Is there any more coffee? // | ||
| - | All are requests for a cup of coffee, but they differ in directness, and consequently in the politeness of the request. The appropriate form for the request depends partly on how much the requester wants the coffee, and more on the social relationship between the participants. Ask rudely from a position of little social power and you risk direct refusal with accompanying loss of face (Clark, 1996), and the loss of coffee. Ask too indirectly and you risk misinterpretation of the request and loss of coffee, but avoid loss of face. | + | All are requests for a cup of coffee, but they differ in directness, and consequently in the politeness of the request. The appropriate form for the request depends partly on how much the requester wants the coffee, and more on the social relationship between the participants. Ask rudely from a position of little social power and you risk direct refusal with accompanying loss of face ([[references#clark1996|Clark, 1996]]), and the loss of coffee. Ask too indirectly and you risk misinterpretation of the request and loss of coffee, but avoid loss of face. |
| - | Getting this aspect of tone correct plays an important role in creating a satisfactory interaction between a customer and a service provider (Polkosky, 2006). Less direct (more deferential) requests from the service provider imply greater choice on the part of the customer, which increases the customer’s satisfaction with the service (Yagil, 2001). Customers might not be able to articulate why they perceive or fail to perceive an appropriate level of respect from a service provider, but they have the very human capacity to detect an inappropriate tone and have a corresponding negative emotional reaction. Common politeness markers include phrases such as “could you” and “would you mind” (Ervin-Tripp, 1993). Even though the syntactic form these expressions take is that of a yes/no question (“Would you please pour me a cup of coffee?”; “Is there any more coffee?”), the clear implication is that these are requests. Only someone who is refusing to cooperate in the conversation, possibly as an indication of anger or an attempt at humor, would respond with a simple “yes” or “no” rather than just smiling and pouring the coffee. Passive voice provides another way to reduce the directness of requests. | + | Getting this aspect of tone correct plays an important role in creating a satisfactory interaction between a customer and a service provider ([[references#polkosky2006|Polkosky, 2006]]). Less direct (more deferential) requests from the service provider imply greater choice on the part of the customer, which increases the customer’s satisfaction with the service ([[references#yagil|Yagil, 2001]]). Customers might not be able to articulate why they perceive or fail to perceive an appropriate level of respect from a service provider, but they have the very human capacity to detect an inappropriate tone and have a corresponding negative emotional reaction. Common politeness markers include phrases such as “could you” and “would you mind” ([[references#ervin-trip|Ervin-Tripp, 1993]]). Even though the syntactic form these expressions take is that of a yes/no question (“Would you please pour me a cup of coffee?”; “Is there any more coffee?”), the clear implication is that these are requests. Only someone who is refusing to cooperate in the conversation, possibly as an indication of anger or an attempt at humor, would respond with a simple “yes” or “no” rather than just smiling and pouring the coffee. Passive voice provides another way to reduce the directness of requests. |
| Some examples of appropriate use of passive voice are: | Some examples of appropriate use of passive voice are: | ||
| * **Focus**: To put the focus on the object of the sentence -- That car was parked by John. | * **Focus**: To put the focus on the object of the sentence -- That car was parked by John. | ||
| - | * **Continuity (end-focus principle)**: To achieve a smooth connection between the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next, especially in dialog (Cohen, Giangola, & Balogh, 2004) -- A: Did John park **that** car? -- B: No, **this** car was parked by John. -- But note **that** you can often achieve end focus more efficiently without passive voice by using ellipsis -- A: Did John park that car? -- B: No, this one. | + | * **Continuity (end-focus principle)**: To achieve a smooth connection between the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next, especially in dialog ([[references#cohen|Cohen, Giangola, & Balogh, 2004]]) -- A: Did John park **that** car? -- B: No, **this** car was parked by John. -- But note **that** you can often achieve end focus more efficiently without passive voice by using ellipsis -- A: Did John park that car? -- B: No, this one. |
| * **Scientific writing**: To avoid the use of personal pronouns (“I,” “we”) in scientific or other formal writing. Note that this practice has been changing, especially in human factors and psychology -- The expected effect was not found. | * **Scientific writing**: To avoid the use of personal pronouns (“I,” “we”) in scientific or other formal writing. Note that this practice has been changing, especially in human factors and psychology -- The expected effect was not found. | ||
| * **Common construction**: Although Mrs. Smith did the work, we would normally say -- John Smith was born on January 5, 1984. | * **Common construction**: Although Mrs. Smith did the work, we would normally say -- John Smith was born on January 5, 1984. | ||