Re: Academic Writing Style -- why?

["Bergen, Jane" <janeb -at- ANSWERSOFT -dot- COM>]

Well, Chris, this type of writing is generally perceived as
"institutional" -- impersonal, objective, and even. It does have its
place, so long as it's not carried to excess or clung to like a mantra.
The purpose of passive voice is to give emphasis to the result, not to
the actors. We have a lot of research studies which explain really
exciting breakthroughs, but generally we want to remember what happened,
not who did it.

On Friday, January 30, 1998 1:05 PM, Chris Hamilton
[SMTP:chamilton -at- GR -dot- COM] wrote:
> This is an offshoot of the first person thread. I understand that
> scientific and academic writing includes a lot of third person and a
lot
> of passive voice. My question is: why?
>
> Someone must have sat down at some point and said, "You know if we
write
> like this, we'll see x, y, and z advantages."
>
> What are x, y, and z?

The third person issue is related. The advantage is that it's impersonal
and it distances the writer from the subject matter. It, too, has its
place. At one time, many writing teachers taught that this was THE style
for any formal papers, reports, etc. Then the pendulum swung hard to the
opposite direction. Now, our knees-jerk so hard they bump us in the chin
when we hear passive voice.

And third person is boring and too distant in today's world of instant
intimacy, self-promotion, and lots of "action." I'm NOT arguing here
that passive and/or third person are more desirable than active/second
person. I'm just offering some possible explanations. I, too, prefer
active/second person in almost 99 percent of the time. But we shouldn't
just dismiss alternatives without thinking of our audience and their
expectations and prejudices.

Just a Friday's dose of my two cents,

Jane Bergen
Jane Bergen, Technical Writer,
AnswerSoft, Inc.     Richardson, TX
(972) 997-8355
janeb -at- answersoft -dot- com