research article passive voice

• Open access
• Published: 07 September 2017

The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985–2015

• David Banks   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4306-1351 1 , 2  

Functional Linguistics volume  4 , Article number:  12 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

16 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Some recent research has suggested that use of the passive voice in scientific writing has declined over the last few years. This study attempts to see to what extent that is true. The corpus consists of 32 scientific articles with 8 taken from the publications of the Royal Society of London for each of the years 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015. Half of the articles are from Series A (physical sciences) publications and half from Series B (biological sciences). Overall there is some evidence that passive use has declined for multi-authored papers, although this is clearer in Series A than in Series B. This is supported by an increase in the use of active verbs with first person pronoun subjects in Series A multi-authored papers. There is a tendency for active verbs with first person pronoun subjects to occur in mental process rather than material process. It is hypothesized that the more personal nature of mental process lends itself to active first person pronoun use, and that an increase in articles based on mathematical modeling, as opposed to experimental reports, has led to an increase in the proportion of mental process verbs, particularly those related to mathematical calculation.

Introduction

Ever since Barber’s seminal ( 1962 ) article there has been a steady stream of research into the use of the passive voice in scientific writing. In that article Barber found that, in his sample of scientific texts, 28% of the non-modal verb forms were in the passive voice, the most common form being the simple present passive which accounted for 25%. Since then the literature on the question of the use of the passive in scientific writing has assumed vast proportions. In this mass of literature some contributions have achieved classic status such as Tarone et al. 1981 , and its follow-up, Tarone et al. 1998 . Tarone et al. 1981 studies what might now be called a mini-corpus (Banks 2005a ) of two astrophysics papers. The rate of passive use is shown to be lower than might have been expected. Active voice with a first person plural subject tends to be used when the authors wish to underline a personal contribution, while passive is used for established or standard procedures. Where a contrast is made, authors tend to use the active voice for their own work and the passive for the work of others. And authors use the passive for speculating on their own future work. Tarone et al. do however point out that these results may be specific to the subgenre of the astrophysics research article. When they returned to this question in 1998, Tarone et al. suggested that a pertinent difference between papers in astrophysics as opposed to many other (but not all) scientific fields, was that their rhetorical structure was that of logical argument rather than experimental report. Nevertheless, use of the passive has continued to be considered a significant resource in the writing of the scientific article. My own study of a corpus of papers in the field of oceanography (Banks 1994 ), showed that passives accounted for just over 30% of the finite verbs, which corresponded fairly well to the sorts of frequencies that had been found in a number of previous studies.

The justification of the use of the passive has most frequently been laid at the door of the idea that scientific writing should be impersonal. Cooray’s claim that the passive “helps the writer to maintain an air of scientific impersonality” (Cooray 1967 , 207) is fairly typical. However, more recently, some have claimed (Halliday 1988 , Banks 2008a , 2008b ) that passive use in scientific writing is a question of thematic structure. The writer, wishing to highlight his object of study, or his experiment, rather than himself, as the starting point of his clause, places it in thematic position, that is, at the beginning of the clause. One of the most common ways (but not the only way) of doing this is by using the passive.

It is curious that although the passive has been a standard resource for scientific writers over many decades, style manuals and instructions to authors have frequently argued in favour of avoiding the passive. Bennett studied a range of academic style manuals, and found that there were “a great many authors that argue categorically in favour of the active voice” ( 2009 , 49). Minton ( 2015 ), however, argues that while much of the opposition to the use of the passive is, in fact, opposition to inappropriate use of the passive, when appropriately used it has a perfectly justifiable place.

The passive voice is an intrinsic part of the English language and used appropriately to maintain the natural flow of writing and presentation of information, it is an essential feature of good writing. Its function is not to conceal or obfuscate, but to maintain stylistic patterns in the presentation of information that have established themselves for very valid reasons in the English language over centuries of usage (Minton 2015 , 9).

Moreover, some, whom one might have thought ought to know better, feel free to pontificate on scientific style. For example, in 2002, Sir Robert May, the then President of the Royal Society, in a letter to a publication intended for science teachers, fulminated against the use of the passive in scientific writing. He wrote:

At the risk of going over-the-top, I would put my own view so strongly as to say that, these days, use of the passive voice in a research paper is more often than not, the hallmark of second rate work (May 2002 , 2).

This was over the top indeed, since even a cursory glance at the papers published in the Royal Society’s own journals shows that if he were correct much of what the Royal Society was publishing would have to be classed as “second rate”! Evidently competence in other fields does not necessarily give one competence in linguistic matters.

This having been said, some linguistic researchers, notably Seoane and her collaborators (Seoane & Loureiro-Porto 2005 , Seoane 2006 , Seoane & Williams 2006 ), claim to have detected a relatively recent change, leading to a decrease in passive use in scientific writing. In Seoane and Loureiro-Porto 2005 , the authors claim that “recent studies have shown that there is a dramatic decrease in the number of passives found in scientific British and American English in the 20 th century” (2005, 107). They found that while the rate of passives (i.e. number of passives as a percentage of passivizable finite verbs) was relatively stable from the beginning of the twentieth century until the 1960s, there was thereafter a considerable decrease, which was “more dramatic in American English” (2005, 109). Between the period 1960–75 and the period 1985–90, the rate of passive use fell from 66.4% to 58.7% of passivizable verbs for British English, and from 62.2% to 46.4% for American English. The authors consider the possibility that this change in passive use is part of a general trend towards colloquialization in scientific English. This, however, appears not to be the case since other markers of colloquialization have not changed in the same way, with the exception of first person pronouns, which can be directly related to the change in passive use. Seoane 2006 goes on to consider other possible explanations in addition to that of colloquialization. She considers and excludes the possibility that the change is due to a move towards a more subjective style, and the possibility that scientific discourse is becoming more personal and author-centred. She thinks that the drive to make scientific writing more effective is a more likely reason for the change. Similar points are put forward in Seoane and Williams 2006 , where scientific discourse is contrasted with prescriptive legal discourse. Hyland and Jiang ( 2017 ) approach the question from the other end of the telescope, as it were, by considering whether academic writing is becoming more informal. They find that use of first person pronouns has increased in academic writing in general and in scientific writing in particular, most notably in biology where the use of first person pronouns has risen from 10.9 per 10,000 words in 1965 to 34.1 per 10,000 words in 2015. This may well be related to changes in passive use. Increasing use of first person pronouns was also noted by Lafuente Millán 2010 , who found that it varied by discipline, and suggested that it involves an effort to balance authorial claims and appropriate modesty. Harwood 2005 underlines the self-promotional function of the use of first person pronouns.

Since the passive has frequently been considered the hallmark of scientific writing, the changes reported in these studies, to the extent that they are true, are indeed significant. My own work (Banks 2008a ), on an admittedly small sample, indicated that at least until 1980 the rate of passives was maintained at over 30% of finite verbs, and that the use of first person pronouns had dwindled to almost nothing. It is therefore of interest to see to what extent these claims that use of the passive is decreasing are true. This paper is an attempt to provide a contribution to the discussion on this important question.

The corpus I will use for this study is derived from the publications of the Royal Society. The corpus contains samples for the years 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015. For the years 1985 and 1995, the texts used are taken from the Philosophical Transactions . In 1997 a decision was taken to move articles of primary research from the Philosophical Transactions to the Proceedings of the Royal Society ; from then on the Philosophical Transactions would publish theme-based series of review articles and monographs on individual topics (Atkinson 1999 , Banks 2008a ). Consequently the texts for 2005 and 2015 are taken from the Proceedings . However, the date of 1997 does not appear to have been a neat cut-off point and some of the articles that turn up in the pre-1997 part of the sample do have a state-of-the-art flavour. Nevertheless, I felt it invidious to alter the corpus post-factum and these articles have been retained in the corpus. The Philosophical Transactions and the Proceedings both produce an A Series and a B Series, the A Series dealing with mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, and the B Series with biological sciences. Four articles from the A Series, and four from the B Series were selected for each of the dates. The choice was made by chance, if not technically random, ease of access being a pragmatic criterion. The details of the corpus are given in Appendix 1 .

No attempt has been made to distinguish between American and British varieties. In fact, with this corpus such an attempt would be fairly difficult. For the 32 articles in the corpus, there is a total of 105 authors or co-authors, five of whom give two institutional addresses, including one article which lists 31 co-authors, three of whom give two institutional addresses, in 10 different countries. While an institutional address in an English-speaking country is no guarantee that the author is a native-speaking anglophone, it can be noted that of the 110 institutional addresses given, 70 are in English-speaking countries, and 40 in non-English-speaking countries. Details are given in Appendix 2 .

Overall results

The finite verbs have been classified into those that are active, but where a passive equivalent exists (Act), those that are passive (Pass), and those that are active in form, but where no passive equivalent exists (NP).

The description of the development and structure of detonation waves provides a comprehensive illustration of all the dynamic effects of combustion presented here. (Oppenheim 1985) Footnote 1

The spectra presented in Fig. 5 are believed to originate from single crystallites. (Brus & Trautman 1995)

Secondly, the types of morphological characters used (metric/continuous or non-metric/meristic) vary widely among studies. (Hartl et al. 1995)

Example (1) shows an active form which has a potential passive equivalent (cf. A comprehensive illustration ... was provided by the description ...); (2) is an example of a passive form; (3) is an example of the NP category, active in form with no passive equivalent (the clause has no component which could function as the potential subject in a putative passive form). The NP category is made up basically of intransitive verbs, including a large number of copulas. The decision as to whether a clause has an active/passive equivalent might be thought to be to some extent subjective, but is, I think non-controversial. In Banks 2008a , I showed that articles in the physical sector, have developed at a different rate to those in the biological sector. For example, experimental articles occurred in the physical sector from the very beginning in 1665, whereas articles in the biological sector were initially observational, and experimental articles did not begin appearing until the mid-nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, the physical sector began to produce articles based on mathematical modelling rather than experiment, but this had not, at least up to 1980, begun to affect the biological sector. Consequently results for the physical sector, Series A articles, and the biological sector, Series B articles, will be given separately in this study. Nevertheless, it is probable that other feature distribution differences will be found in finer subgenre categories, and as Biber and Gray ( 2013 ) have warned, we should not underestimate the effects of subgenre differences. Table 1 gives the overall results for the two series at the four time points. Footnote 2

Initially, the picture presented does not seem particularly clear. In the case of Series A, the percentages of active verbs are higher in the second half of the period, but the percentage falls between 2005 and 2015. In the case of Series B the percentage rises until 2005 but then falls back to a figure lower than that of 1995. It might be thought that the presence of the NP category (non-passivizable verbs) is obscuring the results, but this does not appear to be the case. Table 2 shows the results when the percentages are given of passivizable verbs only.

However, a factor that is a more likely candidate for obscuring the results is the fact that the sample includes a number of articles by single authors. In the A Series, this is the case of one article in 1985, two in 1995, two in 2005, and one in 2015; in Series B, it is the case of 2 articles in 1985 and one in 1995. When the single-authored papers are removed, the results shown in Table 3 emerge.

Here it might be possible to see evidence for increasing use of the active voice in the Series A subsample. The rate for 1995 is lower than that for 1985, but thereafter the rate increases from 19% in 1995 to 44% in 2015. The situation for the Series B articles is less clear. Although the rate rises from 19% in 1985 to 35% in 2005, it then falls back to 28% in 2015, lower than the 1995 rate.

It is also possible to look at the figures for the single-authored articles, but it should be noted that there are never more than two for any given series and year, and in three cases (A Series 1985 and 2015, and B Series 1995) there is only one. In B Series 2005 and 2015 there are no single authored papers. The results are shown in Table 4 .

For Series A, the rate of active use is similar for the years 1985, 1995 and 2015, but the year 2005 stands out as being significantly different. The passive and non-passivizable verb rates are similar for the years 1985 and 1995. By 2015 the rate of passives seems to have increased at the expense of non-passivizable verbs, with 2005 again being rather different. However, since the number of papers is here very small, one cannot exclude the possibilty that this is due to the individual styles of the authors concerned. For Series B, single authored articles only occur in the years 1985 and 1995, but the figures for these two years are similar. It might also be noted that the figures for single authored papers are similar to those for multi-author papers for the years 1985 and 1995, but, at least for Series A, they are considerably different for the years 2005 and 2015.

Use and non-use of first person pronoun subjects

It has frequently been claimed that the use of the passive in scientific discourse is a way of not mentioning the identity of the agent, and thus making the discourse more impersonal. According to Seoane “a basic function of the passive in scientific discourse ... is to defocus or suppress the agent in order to make the discourse impersonal” (2006, 201). Hence, an increase in the use of actives at the expense of passives can be seen to “imply that authors are now not relegated but made central to scientific discourse” (2006, 201). This means that if there has been a switch from passive verbs whose supposed agent is the author, to an active form, then one can presume that the active form will most usually occur with a first person pronoun subject. In Table 5 , active verbs with a first person pronoun subject (weA) (the count includes a small number of verbs with no passive equivalent and a small number of passives with a first person pronoun subject, but the numbers are so small that they do not alter the overall picture) are given as a percentage of passivizable verbs, and these are compared with the percentage of passive verbs whose supposed agent is the author or a group which includes the author (Pwe). Example (4) illustrates the weA category.

Within the O. mucofloris sample ( n  = 18) we detected seven unique haplotypes of 507 bp observing no indels or stop codons (Glover et al. 2005, 2590).

The Pwe category is fairly wide, ranging from examples where the supposed agent is clearly the author(s), such as (5), to those which are general but where the author(s) are presumed to be included, such as (6).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. (Cicconofri & DeSimone 2015)

Computational models of the heart are increasingly used to improve our understanding of cardiac physiology, including the effect of specific genetic changes and animal models of disease (Land et al. 2015).

In (5), obviously only the authors can organize their paper; in (6) it seems reasonable to suppose that the authors are included among those who increasingly use computational models of the heart.

Since it seems likely that this feature will be different in single authored papers as opposed to multi-author papers, and there is some evidence that single authors tend to avoid using first person pronouns (Lafuente Millán 2010 ), the results given here are those for multi-author papers only.

For Series A, it is possible to detect an increase in the use of active verbs with first person pronoun subjects, at least from 1995 onwards, rising from 14% of passivizable verbs in that year to 30% in 2015. The year 2015 is the only one in this sample where the weA type is more frequent than the Pwe type. Hence the evidence that we saw above for an increase in the use of active voice seems to be corroborated here by the increase in the use of first person pronoun subjects with those active verbs.

However, the same cannot be said of Series B. There is an increase between 1985 and 1995, but thereafter the rate remains relatively stable. Moreover, it will be noted that the frequency of the Pwe type is consistently higher than weA. Even in Series A, if passive verbs with a presumed author agent are considered as potential candidates for becoming active verbs with a first person pronoun subject, then even in 2015, only just over half of the potential has been taken up.

On the other hand, averages can sometimes be misleading. Saying that 30% of passivizable verbs are active with a first person pronoun subject in the Series A 2015 papers may give the impression that this is representative of the individual papers in that group. In fact, the average figure masks wide differences in individual papers. Of the three multi-author papers concerned here, the figures for individual articles are 17%, 18% and 61%. Hence, the average is greatly affected by a single high figure. It might be thought that this is placing too much weight on a single figure, but one might also hypothesize that this indicates that, for gatekeepers, the use or non-use of first person pronouns is not (or is no longer) a stylistic criterion. So, in other terms, whether authors thematize the scientific matter or the scientist no longer seems pertinent to those vetting the articles. For the 2015 Series B papers the range for individual papers is 9 to 26%. Ten years earlier, in 2005, our small sample turned up, for Series A, one article which had no examples of weA at all, the others having 31% and 32%. The range for the 2005 Series B articles was 8 to 33%.

As suggested above, single authors might be expected to write differently in this respect. This indeed appears to be the case, since for the Series A articles the percentage of passivizable verbs which are active with a first person pronoun subject, are never more than 2%, with one author not using this resource at all, and one significant exception. In the two articles by single authors which turn up in the 2005 sample 36% of the passivizable verbs are active with first person pronoun subjects (31% in one of the articles, 37% in the other). One factor which may be relevant is that, unlike most of the articles in the corpus, these two papers are mathematical in nature, so it is not impossible that subgenre differences have a part to play here (Biber & Gray 2013 ), and may provide a possible explanation for the high rate of weA examples found in these two papers. Nevertheless, even allowing for exceptions, it does seem true to say that there is still high resistance to the use of first person pronouns in single-authored papers.

Process type

It is possible that the relative use of passives and actives with first person pronoun subjects varies depending on the type of process involved. I have therefore analysed weA and Pwe examples according to the process type of the verb concerned. The process types I use are based on those defined in Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday 2014 ), which provides a framework which is particularly suitable for this type of analysis. I use a system of five process types (Banks 2005b , 2016 ): material processes are actions or events of a physical nature; mental processes are events of a cerebral nature; these are frequently subdivided into cognitive (such as ‘think’), affective (such as ‘like’), and perception (such as ‘see’); the majority of mental processes in academic articles are of the cognitive type (in the case of the scientific journal article, this will include, significantly, processes relating to mathematical calculation and computer analysis); relational processes link an entity to one of its characteristics, or to another entity; verbal processes are processes of communication; and existential processes state the existence of an entity. It is difficult to envisage a passive form for this final category and it will not concern us further here. O’Donnell et al. 2008 showed that there is a range of interpretations of process types, even among those using the Systemic Functional framework, from a more grammatical viewpoint to a more conceptual one. My own analysis is towards the conceptual pole of this cline. The following is an example of material process.

Here, the hyomandibula is supported on a lateral buttress over the jugular vein ... (Brazeau & de Winter 2015).

The following is an example of mental process.

We can anticipate that FCS will re-emerge as a useful tool, especially in the area of coupled reaction and diffusion in the next few years (Birmingham et al. 1995).

The following is an example of a process which to relates to mathematical calculation and is also encoded as mental process.

Equation (2.6) is integrated using the linearly implicit spectral method of Fornberg & Driscoll (1999) which treats carefully the inherent stiffness due to high wavenumbers in the equation for the Fourier components (Johnson & Vilenski 2005).

The following is an example of relational process.

Gene regulatory networks and modules are central for the control and timing of organismal development (Bråte et al. 2015).

And the following is an example of verbal process.

It has been suggested that these differences will have a marked effect on biofilm permeability and any permeability-selective behaviour is likely to effect ecology ... (Birmingham et al. 1995).

The percentage distribution of examples of the weA type according to the process concerned is given in Table 6 .

It is clear that of those active verbs with a first person pronoun that occur in Series A articles the vast majority are examples of mental process. Between 60% and 75% of the weA types are examples of mental processes depending on the year. It will be remembered that in this study this includes both prototypical mental processes such as “consider”, “estimate”, “believe” and “infer”, as well as those which are more typically processes of mathematical calculation or computer analysis, such as “calculate”, “analyse”, “linearize” and “derive”. There is no evidence of any real change over time, as the figure for 1985 is the same as that for 2015. On the other hand, weA types are very rarely material process, with the exception of 1995, where the raw figures are low in any case. The second most common type of process in the weA sample is verbal, and examples of this process type vary from 14 to 22% depending on the year. Relational processes are also extremely rare. These are mainly cases of “need” and “require”, and the small number of non-passivizable cases have been included here, and these are mainly “have” and “be”.

In Series B, the general trend is similar. Mental process is by far the largest category, though to a lesser extent than in Series A, ranging in this case from 54 to 66%. Material processes account for a slightly higher percentage than in Series A, though remaining relatively small, with the exception of 2005. Verbal process is again the second largest group, but providing greater variability from year to year, ranging from 6 to 29%.

Another way of looking at this question is to consider, for each process type, where the presumed agent of the process is the author (or authors), or a group which includes him, what the chances are of it being encoded as an active with a first person pronoun subject. This can be calculated by taking the total number of weA and Pwe forms and dividing the total by the number of weA forms. In Table 7 , this is done for material mental and verbal processes in the multi-author papers in the Series A sample.

Thus, in 1985, there were 7 weA types and 387 Pwe types that were material process in the Series A sample. So, the chances of a weA type occurring is (7 + 387)/7. The result (rounded to the first decimal place) is 56.3. We can therefore say that in 1985 a mental process with the author as supposed agent in a Series A article would have a 1: 56.3 chance of being encoded in the weA form (i.e. for every 56.3 occurrences there is likely to be one weA form). For example, the authors of one article say the following.

In §3 we describe and discuss our observations, first for free convection, then for mixed convection. (Chen et al. 1985)

The chances of the authors making the decision to encode this in weA form rather than its Pwe alternative (as in (13) are one in 56.3.

In §3 our observations are described and discussed first for free convection, then for mixed convection.

So, it can be seen that in 1985 the chances of a material process being in the weA form are very low, whereas the chances of mental and verbal processes being in the weA form are relatively high. The chances of a material process being in the weA form are greatly increased from 1995 onwards, being 1: 8.0 for that year, and rising to 1: 3.6 in 2015. On the other hand, the chances of mental and verbal processes being in the weA form change little over the period studied. Part of the explanation of this situation probably lies in the fact that overall there is a massive reduction in the use of material processes after 1995.

If one looks at multi-authored papers only, then in 1985, in the Series A articles, a weA or Pwe material process occurs on average once every 8.3 finite clauses, and once every 8.0 clauses in 1995. In 2005, however, the figure is once every 55.3 clauses, and once every 31.8 clauses in 2015. I would hypothesize that increasing use of mathematical modelling in the scientific article has led to a drastic reduction in the number of material processes being used. This then gives the impression of a shift to the use of mental processes. Scientific authors are more ready to use a first person pronoun subject with a mental or verbal process than with a material process, passive forms being preferred with material processes, but as overall numbers of material processes dwindle, the percentage of passive forms fall giving a corresponding rise in the percentages of mental and verbal processes.

The situation for Series B papers seems fairly similar. The results for Series B are given in Table 8 .

Here, the only notable difference with the Series A papers is that rise in the chances of a weA material process occurring comes a little later in time. The chances are fairly low in 1985 and 1995, but much greater in 2005 and 2015. For mental and verbal processes there is little change over time, with slightly more variation than in the Series A articles.

In single-author papers, weA forms are used sparingly, with some striking individual exceptions. The details are given in Table 9 , but it must again be remembered that there are never more than two papers for any year, and sometimes only one. These figures are then given to complete the factual details about this small corpus, but it must be remembered that they are precisely that: facts about this corpus; and it would not be appropriate to attempt any extrapolation on the basis of these figures. At best they might provide working hypotheses to be tested by future research.

Since the figures here are so small, they have been given here as raw numbers rather than as percentages. To the extent that anything can be said on such a small sample, it can be noted that most single authors use very few weA forms. For the Series A papers, a total of six articles are concerned. Of these one in 1995 and one in 2015 use no weA forms at all. Of the others, three papers use them fairly modestly; one paper in each of the years 1985, 1995 and 2005 use five, four and 12 examples respectively. However, the one remaining paper from 2005 uses them relatively frequently, having 73 examples. In the Series B papers, only three articles are concerned, with five and 16 examples in 1985, and one in 1995. Hence it would seem that most single authors of papers are very reticent about using first person pronoun subjects, but that individual authors may take a different line and this is not seen as an impediment to publication by gatekeepers. The pronoun almost inevitably actually used is “we”, frequently an inclusive “we”. There are only five examples of the singular pronoun “I” in single-author papers in the whole corpus, and these occur in the two 1985 B Series articles.

Final remarks

On the basis of this small study, there does seem to be some evidence that the use of the active voice with first person pronoun subjects is increasing at the expense of passive forms. This change is however clearer in the Series A articles than in the Series B articles. In multi-authored papers, the use of weA forms is more common in mental processes than in material processes. Some commentators (e.g. Tarone et al. 1981) have suggested that use of the active form may be motivated by a desire to highlight a process as being a personal contribution. Intuitively mental processes might be seen as being more personal than material processes; only I can have my thoughts, but, in theory, anyone can repeat a physical action. I would hypothesize that as research articles become more a question of mathematical modelling and computer analysis, the overall numbers of material processes is diminishing, with a consequent rise in the proportion of mental processes, particularly those relating to calculation. Systemic Functional Linguistics provides an excellent tool for bringing out this aspect of scientific text. In particular, from the point of view of this study it provides a framework for the analysis of process types which has been adapted for the purposes of this paper. Since mental processes can be more easily encoded in the active form, because they are felt as somehow more personal, the percentage of active mental processes rises. Once again, however, this picture seems clearer in the case of Series A than that of Series B. This would seem to correspond to a general trend whereby changes in style occur first in the physical sciences, and are only adopted by the biological sciences at a later date (Banks 2008a ). In single-author papers, weA forms are, in general, used very rarely. However, they may be used fairly extensively by individual authors, and this seems acceptable to gatekeepers.

Hence, I am suggesting that the perceived decrease in the use of passive forms, and consequent increase in the use of active forms with first person subjects, in Series A articles, is due to an increase in the use of mathematical modelling in the physical sector. The processes involved in mathematical modelling include significant numbers of mental processes which are more conducive to the use of active forms, than is the case with material processes. The use of mathematical modelling began to affect the Series B articles at a later date, and while there is evidence that Series B is following the same route as Series A, the situation is for the moment less clear.

This study has been carried out on a small sample. It is therefore presented with all the provisos that such a sample requires. Nevertheless the picture which seems to be emerging is compatible with the available evidence. It would nonetheless merit confirmation in a larger corpus. We have seen that there are differences between the Series A articles and the Series B articles. I would expect further differences to be revealed by studies on finer generic differences between disciplines and sub-disciplines, and on disciplines not represented here, such as medicine. It might also be useful in future studies to distinguish processes of mathematical calculation and computer analysis from other forms of mental process. Footnote 3

Relevant parts of examples are printed in bold .

Throughout, percentages are given to the nearest integer. Any discrepancies are due to rounding.

I would like to thank two anonymous Functional Linguistics reviewers for their insightful comments which have enabled me to improve on the initial version of this article. It goes without saying that I alone am responsible for any shortcomings that remain.

Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. In The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675-1975. Mahwah . NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar  

Banks, David. 1994. Writ in water, aspects of the scientific journal article . Brest: ERLA, Université de Bretagne Occidentale.

Banks, David. 2005a. The case of Perrin and Thomson: An example of the use of a mini-corpus. English for Specific Purposes 24 (2): 201–211.

Banks, David. 2005b. Introduction à la linguistique systémique fonctionnelle de l'anglais . Paris: L'Harmattan.

Banks, David. 2008a. The development of scientific writing. In Linguistic features and historical context . London, Equinox.

Banks, David. 2008b. The significance of thematic structure in the scientific journal article, 1700–1980. In Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, Odense Working Papers in Language and Communications 29 , ed. Nina Nørgard. http://www.sdu.dk/da/Om_SDU/Institutter_Isk/Forkningspublikationer/OWPLC.aspx .

Banks, David. 2016. On the (non)necessity of the hybrid category behavioural process. In Hybridity in Systemic Functional Linguisics. Grammar, text and discursive context , ed. Donna R. Miller and Paul Bayley, 21–40. Sheffield: Equinox.

Barber, C.L. 1962. Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific prose. In Contributions to English syntax and philology , ed. F. Behre, 21–43. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Bennett, Karen. 2009. English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8: 43–54.

Article   Google Scholar  

Biber, Douglas, and Bethany Gray. 2013. Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. J Engl Linguist 41 (2): 104–134.

Cooray, Mahinda. 1967. The English passive voice. Engl Lang Teach 21 (3): 203–210.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1988. On the language of physical science. In Ghadessy M., (ed.). Registers of Written English: Situational factors and linguistic features. London: Pinter, 162-178. [reprinted in Halliday & Martin (1993: 54-68) and Halliday (ed. J. Webster)(2004): 140-158].

Halliday, MAK. (revised by Christian MIM. Matthiessen). 2014. Halliday’s Introdution to functional grammar, 4 th . edn. London: Routledge.

Harwood, Nigel. 2005. ‘ Nowhere has anyone attempted ... In this article I aim to do just that ’. A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (8): 1207–1231.

Hyland, Ken, and Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2017. Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes 45: 40–51.

Lafuente Millán, Enrique. 2010. ‘ Extending this claim, we propose ...’. The writer’s presence in research articles from different disciplines. Ibérica 20:35–56.

May, Sir Robert. 2002. ‘I did’ or ‘It was done’?”. TSNews 15: 1–2 [reprinted in Osmosis (2003: 42, 3)].

Minton, Timothy D. 2015. In defense of the passive voice in medical writing. The Keio Journal of Medicine 64 (1): 1–10.

O’Donnell, Michael, Michele Zappavigna, and Casey Whitelaw. 2008. A survey of process type classification over difficult cases. In New developments in the study of ideational meaning: From language to multimodality , ed. Carys Jones and Eija Ventola, 47–64. London: Continuum.

Seoane, Elena. 2006. Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English. In Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000 , ed. Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Dieter Kastorsky, Nikolaus Ritt, and Herbert Schendl, 191–209. Bern: Peter Lang.

Seoane, Elena, and Lucia Loureiro-Porto. 2005. On the colloquialization of scientific British and American English. ESP Across Cultures 2: 106–116.

Seoane, Elena, and Christopher Williams. 2006. Changing the rules: A comparison of recent trends in English in academic scientific discourse and prescriptive legal discourse. In Diachronic perspectives on domain-specific English , ed. Marina Dossena and Irma Taavitainen, 255–276. Bern: Peter Lang.

Tarone, Elaine, Sharon Dwyer, Susan Gillette & Vincent Icke. 1981. On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers. ESP Journal. 1(2): 121-139 [reprinted in Swales, John (ed.) 1985:191-205.

Tarone, Elaine, Sharon Dwyer, Susan Gillette, and Vincent Icke. 1998. On the use of passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other language and other fields. English for Specific Purposes 17 (1): 113–132.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines, 20 rue Duquesne, 29238, Brest Cedex 3, France

David Banks

Present Address: 2 rue des Saules, 29217, Plougonvelin, France

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Banks .

Appendix 1: Corpus

Philosophical transactions a 315.

Oppenheim, A.K.: Dynamic features of combustion.

Philosophical Transactions A 316

Chen, K.S., J.A.C. Humphrey & F.S. Sherman: Free and mixed convective flow of air in a heated cavity of variable rectangular cross section and orientation.

Mysak, L.A., G Salvadè, K. Hutter & T. Scheiwiller: Topographical waves in a stratified elliptical basin, with application to the lake of Lugano.

Quinn, T.J. & J.E. Martin: A ra&diametric determination of the Stafan-Boltzmann constant and thermodynamic temperatures between −40 °C and +100 °C.

Philosophical Transactions B 312

Jacobson, M. & S.L. Klein: Analysis of clonal restriction of cell mingling in Xenopus .

Kenyon, Cynthia: Cell lineage and the control of Caenorhabditis elegans development.

Stent, G.S.: the role of cell lineage in development.

Weisblat, D.A. & M. Hankland: Cell lineage and segmentation in the leech.

Philosophical Transactions A 353

Binh, Vu Thien, N. Garcia & V. Semet: Nanotips and nonosources: applications to low-energy-electron microscopy.

Broers, Alec N.: Fabrication limits of electron beam lithography and of UV, X-ray and ion-beam lithographies.

Brus, L.E. & J.K. Trautman: Nanocrystals and nano-optics.

Drexler, K.E.: Molecular manufacturing: perspectives on the ultimate limits of fabrication.

Philosophical Transactions B 350

Birmingham, J.J., N.P. Hughes & R. Trelloar: Diffusion and binding measurements within oral biofilms using fluorescence photobleaching recovery methods.

Davis, Brian K.: Significance of strand configuration in self-replicating RNA molecules.

Fredkin, D.R., J.A. Rice, D. Colquhoun & A.J. Gibb: Persistence: a new statistic for characterizing ion-channel activity.

Hartl, Günther B., Franz Suchentrunk, Rudolf Willing & Renate Petznek: Allozyme heterozygosity and fluctuating asymmetry in the brown hare ( Lepus europaeus ): a test of the developmental homeostasis hypothesis.

Proceedings A 461

Biktashev, Vadim N. & Mikhail A. Tsyganov: Solitary waves in excitable systems with cross-diffusion.

Cañizo Rincón, José Alfredo: Asymptotic behavior of solutions to the generalized Beck-Döring equations for general initial data.

Jansons, Kalvis M.: Brownian excursion with a single mark.

Johnson, E.R. & G.G. Vilenski: Two-dimensional leaps in near-critical flow over isolated orography.

Proceedings B 272

Astles, Philip A., Allen J. Moore & Richard F. Preziosi: Genetic variation in response to an indirect ecological effect.

Glover, Adrian G., Björn Källström, Craig R. Smith & Thomas G. Dahlgren: World-wide whale worms? A new species of Osedax from the shallow north Atlantic.

Kubodera, Tsunemi & Kyoichi Mori: First-ever observations of a live giant squid in the wild.

Jutz, S.J., E.P. Hoberg, L. Polley & E.J. Jenkins: Global warming is changing the dynamics of Arctic host-parasite systems.

Proceedings A 471

Ciccinofri, Giancarlo & Antonio DeSimone: A study of snake-like locomotion throughthe analysis of a flexible robot model.

Huang, D., S. Chernyshenko, P. Goulart, D. Lasagna, O. Tutty & F. Fuentes: Sum-of-squares of polynomials approach to nonlinear stability of fluid flows: an examples of application.

Land, Sander, Vlatcheslav Gurev, Sander Arens, Christoph M. Augustin, Lukas Baron, Robert Blake, Chris Bradley, Sebastian Castro, Andrew Crozier, Marco Favino, Thomas E. Fastl, Thomas Fritz, Hao Gao, Alesia Gizzi, Boyce E. Griffith, Daniel E. Hurtado, Rolf Krause, Xiaoyu Luo, Martyn P. Nash, Simone Pezzuto, Gernot Plank, Simone Rossi, Daniel Ruprecht, Gunnar Seeman, Nicolas P. Smith, Joakim Sundnes, J. Jeremy Rice, Natalia Trayanova, Dafang Wang, Zhinuo Jenny Wang & Steven A. Neiderer: Verification of cardiac mechanics software: benchmark problems and solutions for testing active and passive material behavior.

Mao, X.: Sensitivity of forces to wall transpiration in flow past an aerofoil.

Proceedings B 282

Bråte, Jon, Marcin Adamski, Ralf S. Neumann, Kamran Shalchian-Tabrizi & Maja Adamska: Regulatory RNA at the root of animals: dynamic expression of developmental lincRNAs in the calcisponge Sycon ciliatum .

Brazeau, Martin D. & Valerie de Winter: The hyoid arch and braincase anatomy of Acanthodes support chondrichthyan affinity of ‘acanthodians’.

Champredon, David & Jonathan Dushoff: Intrinsic and realized generation intervals in infectious-disease transmission.

Puttick, Mark N., & Gavin H. Thomas: Fossils and living taxa agree on patterns of body mass evolution: a case study with Afrotheria.

Appendix 2 : No. of authors per country of institutional address

Australia 2

Netherlands 2.

New Zealand 5.

Switzerland 7.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Banks, D. The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985–2015. Functional Linguist. 4 , 12 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-017-0045-5

Download citation

Received : 18 April 2017

Accepted : 17 August 2017

Published : 07 September 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-017-0045-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Passive Voice
• Scientific Journal Articles
• Subject Personal Pronouns
• Multi-authored Papers
• Scientific Writing

• Writing Home
• Writing Advice Home

Passive Voice: When to Use It and When to Avoid It

• Printable PDF Version
• Fair-Use Policy

What is passive voice?

In English, all sentences are in either “active” or “passive” voice:

active: Werner Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle in 1927. passive: The uncertainty principle was formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.

In an active sentence, the person or thing responsible for the action in the sentence comes first. In a passive sentence, the person or thing acted on comes first, and the actor is added at the end, introduced with the preposition “by.” The passive form of the verb is signaled by a form of “to be”: in the sentence above, “was formulated” is in passive voice while “formulated” is in active.

In a passive sentence, we often omit the actor completely:

The uncertainty principle was formulated in 1927.

When do I use passive voice?

In some sentences, passive voice can be perfectly acceptable. You might use it in the following cases:

The cave paintings of Lascaux were made in the Upper Old Stone Age. [We don’t know who made them.]

An experimental solar power plant will be built in the Australian desert. [We are not interested in who is building it.]

Mistakes were made. [Common in bureaucratic writing!]

Rules are made to be broken. [By whomever, whenever.]

Insulin was first discovered in 1921 by researchers at the University of Toronto. It is still the only treatment available for diabetes.

The sodium hydroxide was dissolved in water. This solution was then titrated with hydrochloric acid.

In these sentences you can count on your reader to know that you are the one who did the dissolving and the titrating. The passive voice places the emphasis on your experiment rather than on you.

Note: Over the past several years, there has been a movement within many science disciplines away from passive voice. Scientists often now prefer active voice in most parts of their published reports, even occasionally using the subject “we” in the Materials and Methods section. Check with your instructor or TA whether you can use the first person “I” or “we” in your lab reports to help avoid the passive.

When should I avoid passive voice?

Passive sentences can get you into trouble in academic writing because they can be vague about who is responsible for the action:

Both Othello and Iago desire Desdemona. She is courted. [Who courts Desdemona? Othello? Iago? Both of them?]

Academic writing often focuses on differences between the ideas of different researchers, or between your own ideas and those of the researchers you are discussing. Too many passive sentences can create confusion:

Research has been done to discredit this theory. [Who did the research? You? Your professor? Another author?]

Some students use passive sentences to hide holes in their research:

The telephone was invented in the nineteenth century. [I couldn’t find out who invented the telephone!]

Finally, passive sentences often sound wordy and indirect. They can make the reader work unnecessarily hard. And since they are usually longer than active sentences, passive sentences take up precious room in your paper:

Since the car was being driven by Michael at the time of the accident, the damages should be paid for by him.

Weeding out passive sentences

If you now use a lot of passive sentences, you may not be able to catch all of the problematic cases in your first draft. But you can still go back through your essay hunting specifically for passive sentences. At first, you may want to ask for help from a writing instructor. The grammar checker in your word processor can help spot passive sentences, though grammar checkers should always be used with extreme caution since they can easily mislead you. To spot passive sentences, look for a form of the verb to be in your sentence, with the actor either missing or introduced after the verb using the word “by”:

Poland was invaded in 1939, thus initiating the Second World War. Genetic information is encoded by DNA. The possibility of cold fusion has been examined for many years.

Try turning each passive sentence you find into an active one. Start your new sentence with the actor. Sometimes you may find that need to do some extra research or thinking to figure out who the actor should be! You will likely find that your new sentence is stronger, shorter, and more precise:

Germany invaded Poland in 1939, thus initiating the Second World War. DNA encodes genetic information. Physicists have examined the possibility of cold fusion for many years.

How and When to Use Active or Passive Voice in Research Papers

Many young researchers are unsure about when and where to use active or passive voice in research papers. In fact, once you are sure about what to include in your research article, the next big question usually is how to include this information and which writing voice to use.  

Being uncertain about whether to use the active or passive voice in research papers is actually quite common. The simple answer is that usage and preference of one over the other is arbitrary and depends on the point that you, the researcher, are trying to make 1 . Balance is crucial here, though; sticking to just one voice structure can not only make the article boring but also ambiguous at times. As a result, the reader is left unsure of the authors’ intended message and which section to focus on. 

You might be wondering at this point what the difference between active and passive voice is and why it matters so much when only the research should be of concern. It matters because choosing the right writing style is key to convey your ideas in your research paper in a clear, succinct, and convincing manner.

To make it easier, we answer the most frequently asked questions in this article. 

Table of Contents

• What’s the difference between active and passive voice? 
• When should you use active or passive voice in research papers? 
• i) The introduction section 
• ii) The results section 
• ii) The methods section 

What’s the difference between active and passive voice?

When you use active voice in research papers, the agent—a person or object—doing the stated “action”—receives emphasis. 

E.g., CRISPR is a new gene editing tool that edits the DNA (Active)  

The use of CRISPR as the agent in this sentence serves to highlight the significance of CRISPR as a tool for gene editing. 

When you use passive voice in scientific writing, emphasis is given to the subject (person or object) receiving the action (of the verb). 

E.g., The DNA can be edited by a new gene editing tool, CRISPR (Passive)  

In this example, DNA is the object of the CRISPR action (editing). The author wants to draw attention to how the DNA can be edited by CRISPR. Simply put, the performer (CRISPR) is the main focus in the active voice, whereas the recipient (DNA) is the star of the show in the passive voice. 

When should you use active or passive voice in research papers ?

When you write a research paper, active or passive voice usage makes a significant difference to how your words are interpreted. The use of passive voice in research papers has traditionally been favored; however, in recent years, more journals have started to prefer the use of active voice in research papers. Journals like Science and Nature encourage researchers to use, whenever appropriate, active voice in research papers 2 . This is because scientific articles should be simple to read and comprehend, and most sentences written in the active voice are succinct, straightforward, and vigorous. It does not imply that sentences in the passive voice have no place in your research articles. Passive sentences are formal, impersonal, and occasionally even shorter, making them just as significant as active voice sentences if used in the right way. See how the passive voice can be shorter and more impersonal than the active voice in the following example. 

E.g., Researchers have created the first artificial vision system for both land and water (Active)  

In the above active sentence, the placement of the subject (researchers) at the beginning gives the impression that researchers are significant in this context. 

E.g., The first artificial vision system for both land and water has been created (Passive)  

The most important part of the passive sentence above is the construction of the first artificial vision system (action); information about the researchers (subject) is either universally true or unnecessary and can be omitted entirely. 

In contrast, using passive voice can occasionally lengthen and also complicate a sentence. See this example: 

E.g., The James Webb telescope finds a 13.5 billion-year-old galaxy in the universe (Active)  

E.g., A 13.5 billion-year-old galaxy in the universe was found by the James Webb telescope (Passive)  

In this example, the active voice sentence is clear and emphasizes the James Webb telescope as the agent that performs the action of identifying a galaxy. The sentence in passive voice emphasizes the newly discovered galaxy and is two words longer than in active voice. 

Which sections of the manuscript require which type of voice construction?

It is crucial to use both active and passive voice in research papers in order to keep your writing from sounding repetitive and unclear. The active voice is typically used in an article’s introduction, results, and discussion sections to simplify complex information 3 . See a few examples: 

i) The introduction section

E.g., Mild and moderate diseases of the upper respiratory tract in animals and humans are caused by the SARS-CoV-2, an enveloped RNA virus (Passive)  

E.g., SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped RNA virus that causes mild and moderate diseases of the upper respiratory tract in animals and humans (Active)  

As seen in the above example, using active voice in the introduction is preferable as it is clear and concise. 

ii) The results section

E.g., No attempts were made to check the interactions of the proteins as it was beyond the scope of the present study (Passive)  

E.g., We did not check the interactions of the proteins as it was beyond the scope of the present study (Active)  

Active voice is usually preferred in the results section to emphasize the outcome (interactions of protein in this example); it is also used to highlight the role of the authors in making decisions. 

ii) The methods section

The total RNA was treated with DNAseI to remove the contaminating DNA for cDNA synthesis (Passive)  

We treated the total RNA with DNAseI to remove the contaminating DNA for cDNA synthesis (Active)  

The use of passive voice is preferred in the methods section, where the process itself is valued more highly than who is performing the process. 

The general rule is, therefore, to select the preferred voice while taking the statement’s clarity and the points you want to emphasize into consideration. Needless to say, a combination of both voices provides cadence and clarity to the writing. When in doubt, use active voice liberally when you need objectivity, and use passive voice when it is required. Use passive voice in academic writing when the performer is unimportant, obvious, or unknown; passive voice is also preferred when the process or action is more important than who did it (often the case in the method section). Hope these tips help you understand when to use active and passive voice in research papers, and you can slay your academic writing. 

1. Majumdar, K. How to effectively use active and passive voice in research writing. Editage Insights (2019) https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-effectively-use-active-and-passive-voice-in-research-writing

2. Clear Science Writing: Active Voice or Passive Voice? http://www.biomedicaleditor.com/active-voice.html

3. Cerejo, C. Using the active and passive voice in research writing. Editage Insights (2013) https://www.editage.com/insights/using-the-active-and-passive-voice-in-research-writing

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• What does ‘et al.’ mean and How to Use ‘et al.’ in a Research Paper
• Know the Difference: Quoting, Paraphrasing and Summarizing 
• 3 Easy Ways for Researchers to Improve Their Academic Vocabulary
• 7 Common Writing Mistakes to Avoid in Your Research Paper 

Enhance Your Research Paper with a Comprehensive English Language Check

Using metaphors in academic writing, you may also like, how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., word choice problems: how to use the right..., publish research papers: 9 steps for successful publications , self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how..., 6 tips for post-doc researchers to take their..., 8 most effective ways to increase motivation for..., how to make your thesis supervision work for..., how to paraphrase research papers effectively, 4 types of transition words for research papers .

Is academic writing less passivized? Corpus-based evidence from research article abstracts in applied linguistics over the past three decades (1990–2019)

• Published: 22 August 2022
• Volume 127 , pages 5773–5792, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Zhijun Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2691-7672 1  

937 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The passive voice is an essential construction for packaging information. Previous studies observed a trend that academic writing in the late half of the twentieth century witnesses a noticeable decline in the use of the passive voice. Unfortunately, indications of such trend in current academic writing are suggestive and diachronic investigation of passivization in the part-genre of research article abstracts receives little attention. To further attest the trend regarding passivization, this study tracks the evolution of passive uses as well as its relation with active uses initiated by personal pronouns in research article abstracts in applied linguistics. To this end, qualitative and quantitative analysis were conducted on a self-built corpus of 2707 abstracts published in four authoritative applied linguistics journals between 1990 and 2019. The abstracts were grouped into single- and co-authored ones using a self-compiled Visual Basic for Application Excel program and the data were statistically analyzed using SPSS Statistics 17.0. It is found that the occurrence of the passive voice displays an overall declining trend and a significantly negative correlation with the incidence of personal pronoun active uses over the three decades, particularly in co-authored abstracts. Surprisingly, a synchronous dwindle is also detected in the occurrence of personal pronoun active uses in co-authored abstracts, particularly in the latest decade. These findings suggest a shift towards an increasingly informational, efficient and reader-friendly style in abstract writing and give implications to academic writing and English for Academic Purposes instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

An Analysis of Dissertation Abstracts Written by Non-native English Speakers at a Serbian University: Differences and Similarities Across Disciplines

Research article titles in written feedback on English as a second language writing

William S. Pearson

The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985–2015

David Banks

This regular expression retrieves both passives where the auxiliary BE is located adjacent to the past participle, and those where there is interceding negation and/or adverbs.

Insignificant statistical results are not presented in this article in order to save space.

The source of this abstract example: Cheng and Ching ( 2018 ).

The source of this abstract example: Chen and Baker ( 2016 ).

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). APA Books.

Google Scholar  

Atkinson, D. (1996). The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society, 25 (3), 333–371.

Article   Google Scholar  

Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London, 1675–1975 . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Banks, D. (2008). The development of scientific writing: Linguistic features and historical context . Equinox.

Banks, D. (2017). The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985–2015. Functional Linguistics, 4 (1), 12.

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science . University of Wisconsin Press.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre and style . Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Drift and the evolution of english style: A history of three genres. Language, 65 , 487–517.

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English. Linguistic change in writing . Cambridge University Press.

Bondi, M., & Lorés Sanz, R. (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change . Peter Lang.

Bradshaw, C. J. A. (2018). The effective scientist: A handy guide to a successful academic career . Cambridge University Press.

Çakır, H. (2016). Native and non-native writers’ use of stance adverbs in english research article abstracts". Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6 (2), 85–96.

Cao, Y., & Xiao, R. (2013). A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and nonnative writers. Corpora, 8 (2), 209–234.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English . Cambridge University Press.

Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P. (2016). Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 849–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu065

Cheng, W., & Ching, T. (2018). ‘Not a guarantee of future performance’: The local grammar of disclaimers. Applied Linguistics, 39 (3), 263–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw006

Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education . Routledge.

Diaz-Redondo, M. (2021). A critical analysis of the use of passives and relative clauses in freshwater ecology research articles. Revista De Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 27 (1), 140–156.

Ding, D. D. (1998). Rationality reborn: Historical roots of the passive voice in scientific discourse. In J. T. Battalio (Ed.), Essays in the study of scientific discourse: Methods, practice, and pedagogy (pp. 117–135). Ablex.

Ding, D. D. (2002). The passive voice and social values in science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 32 (2), 138–154.

Dumin, L. (2010). Changes in the use of the passive voice over time: A historical look at the American Journal of Botany and the changes in the use of the passive voice from 1914–2008 . Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University PhD dissertation

Evans, K. (2015). Even scientists should avoid the passive voice. Retrieved Oct 7, 2021, from http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/what-is-the-passive-voice-3

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Longman.

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (2), 128–139.

Goodman, S., & Graddol, D. (1997). Redesigning english. new texts, new identities . Routledge.

Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the seventeenth century to the present . Oxford University Press.

Hundt, M., Denison, D., & Schneider, G. (2012). Relative complexity in scientific discourse. English Language and Linguistics, 16 (2), 209–240.

Hundt, M., & Mair, C. (1999). “Agile” and “Uptight” Genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4 (2), 221–242.

Hundt, M., Schneider, G., & Seoane, E. (2016). The use of the be-passive in academic Englishes: Local versus global usage in an international language. Corpora, 11 (1), 29–61.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 , 207–226.

Hyland, K. (2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19 , 32–43.

Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45 , 40–51.

Inzunza, E. (2020). Reconsidering the use of the passive voice in scientific writing. The American Biology Teacher, 82 (8), 563–565.

Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46 , 1–14.

Khedri, M., Heng, C. S., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Discourse Studies, 15 (3), 319–331.

Lafuente Millán, E. (2010). ‘Extending this claim, we propose…’ The writer’s presence in research articles from different disciplines. Ibérica, 20 , 35–56.

Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study . Cambridge University Press.

Leong, A. (2020). The passive voice in scientific writing through the ages: A diachronic study. Text & Talk, 40 (4), 467–489.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Leong, P. A., Toh, A. L. L., & Chin, S. F. (2018). Examining structure in scientific research articles: A study of thematic progression and thematic density. Written Communication, 35 (3), 286–314.

Li, Z. (2021). Authorial presence in research article abstracts: A diachronic investigation of the use of first person pronouns. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51 , 100977.

Lindeberg, A. C. (2004). Promotion and politeness: Conflicting scholarly rhetoric in three disciplines . Abo Akademi University Press.

Mair, C., & Leech, G. (2006). Current change in english syntax. In B. Aarts & A. MacMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 318–342). Blackwell.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Millar, N., Budgell, B., & Fuller, K. (2013). ‘Use the active voice whenever possible’: The impact of style guidelines in medical journals. Applied Linguistics, 34 (4), 393–414.

Mu, C. A. (2021). Multidimensional contrastive analysis of linguistic features between international and local biology journal english research articles. Scientometrics, 126 , 7901–7916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04102-x

Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10 (2), 231–250.

Seoane, E. (2006). Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American english. In C. Dalton-Puffer, D. Kastovsky, N. Ritt, & H. Schendl (Eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000 (pp. 191–211). Peter Lang.

Seoane, E. (2013). On the conventionalisation and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in late modern english scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14 (1), 70–99.

Seoane, E., & Hundt, M. (2017). Voice alternation and authorial presence: variation across disciplinary areas in academic english. Journal of English Linguistics, 46 (1), 3–22.

Seoane, E., & Loureiro-Porto, L. (2005). On the colloquialization of scientific British and American english. ESP across Cultures, 2 , 106–118.

Seoane, E., & Williams, C. (2006). Questions of style. Legal drafting manuals and scientific style manuals in contemporary English. Linguistica e Filologia, 22 , 115–137.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings . Cambridge University Press.

Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17 (1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00032-X

Wheeler, M. A., Vylomova, E., McGrath, M. J., & Haslam, N. (2021). More confident, less formal: Stylistic changes in academic psychology writing from 1970 to 2016. Scientometrics, 126 , 9603–9612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04166-9

Xiao, R., McEnery, T., & Qian, Y. (2006). Passive constructions in english and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6 (1), 109–149.

Download references

Table 1 is reprinted and slightly modified from Journal of English for Academic Purposes , vol.51, 100977, Li, Zhijun, Authorial presence in research article abstracts: A diachronic investigation of the use of first person pronouns, Table 1 , Copyright (2021), with permission from Elsevier. The minor modification mainly goes to the number of words as this study used the word counting function of Microsoft Word while that study used the word counting function of AntConc. This work was supported by National Social Science Foundation of China [Grant Number 21BYY091], and Special Project on Overseas Chinese Studies of Huaqiao University (Grant number HQHRYB2020-03).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Foreign Languages, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, 361021, Fujian, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhijun Li .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Li, Z. Is academic writing less passivized? Corpus-based evidence from research article abstracts in applied linguistics over the past three decades (1990–2019). Scientometrics 127 , 5773–5792 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04498-0

Download citation

Received : 19 November 2021

Accepted : 08 August 2022

Published : 22 August 2022

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04498-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic writing
• The passive voice
• Personal pronoun actives
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

Using Active or Passive Voice in Research Papers

When to Use the Active or Passive Voice in Research Writing

One decision that gives pause to thousands of beginning researchers is whether to use the active or passive voice in their research papers. You may have been taught in school that you should always use the active voice, especially when giving speeches and when writing fiction or persuasive essays, as it emphasizes the subject and makes your sentences leaner and stronger.

While this rule generally applies to research writing, there are some definite differences in application–this accounts for why there are so many sentences in scientific journal articles using the passive voice construction. In fact, applying only  one  type of voice construction can make a paper awkward to read and difficult to comprehend, and it might even confuse the reader about which parts of the study or a given passage are most important. So when should an author choose the passive voice over the active voice and what is the difference between the two?

Differences Between the  Active  and the  Passive Voice

In general, the active voice emphasizes the  agent  of the action—that is, the  person or object performing the action .

Example: “ We   arranged  the sample groups.”

The subject pronoun “we” leads the sentence, setting off its importance in the action and leading right into the action taken against the object, “the sample groups.” Using this construction doesn’t necessarily imply that “the sample groups” is unimportant, but it does place special emphasis on the agent of the action.

The passive voice, on the other hand, emphasizes the  person or object receiving the action.

Example:  “ Sample groups   were arranged  (by us/by the researchers).”

In this example, “sample groups” stands out as the most important element in the sentence, and indeed it should since we are able to omit the agent entirely—adding “by us” or “by the researchers” seems redundant as the researchers are necessarily the ones carrying out the operations of a study. Also, note that by eliminating the agent we have also decreased the word count, which makes the passive construction leaner than the active voice in this case.

Since active-voice constructions are usually stronger, clearer, more direct, and often more concise than their passive-voice counterparts, most style guides advise scientific and clinical authors to favor the active voice in their research writing.

However, this is not a command to silence the passive voice entirely. In fact, scientific manuscripts have increasingly favored passive-voice construction in the past couple of decades. Whether the reasons for this are practical or because it is simply more fashionable today to use the passive voice, there are good reasons to include this construction to gain a balanced perspective in your writing.

Sticking with the conventional wisdom that we should use the  active voice  as often as possible, when exactly should we opt for the passive? Here are three circumstances in which using the passive voice can be a good decision.

1) When the agent of the action is unimportant, unknown, or obvious to readers

Choose the passive voice when the agent of the action is unknown or unimportant to the action being discussed, or when it is quite clear who is performing the action. In some cases, you may identify the agent using a “by” clause, but it is often unnecessary to add this information.

Examples of active and passive voice:

“Over 20,000 patients  are diagnosed  with diabetes each year (by doctors) in the United States.” “Encyclopedias  have been written  (by scribes and scholars) throughout history.” “ Carcharodon carcharias   has been studied  (by scientists) more extensively than almost any other species of shark.”

In the first example, naming the agent of diagnosis is redundant, as doctors are almost universally the ones who diagnose diseases. In the second example, the author assumes the reader will not be interested in the authors (this decision of course depends on the focus of the study) or perhaps the authors are unknown; the agent may be added in case this information is known and is somewhat important to the statement. In the third example, the agent is fairly obvious, as scientists are the ones tasked with studying species of animals.

2) When the object or action itself is more important than the agent performing the action

In research writing, the study is clearly of greater importance than the researcher undertaking the study (unless that researcher happens to be someone as renowned as Stephen Hawking), and thus the passive voice is more often employed. This object/action focus can commonly be seen in the  Methods  section, in which an author writes about what he or she did (or rather,  “what was done”),  mostly using the passive voice since the topics here are generally the research methods, materials, and procedures.

“Frozen embryos  were stored  in a cryogenic tank for two weeks.” “The extract from sample A  was added  to sample B to create a mixture.” “The results  were assessed  using a Chi-square statistic.”

The sentences might be written in the active voice like so:

“We  stored  the embryos in a cryogenic tank for two weeks.” “We  added  the extract from sample A to sample B to create a mixture.” “Our team  assessed  the results using a Chi-square statistic.”

What would be the net benefit of using the active voice here? In none of these examples would the active voice improve the sentences by shortening them or by clarifying the focus of the action. The length of each active sentence is the same as its passive voice counterpart, and the sentences in the active voice actually redirect the focus to the  agent —“we” or “our team”—which does not seem to be the most important element in any of these examples. The active-voice constructions are admittedly a bit stronger and livelier, but they seem more fitting for a short story or anecdote than for an explanation of actions carried out in the course of a scientific study.

Another benefit of using the passive voice in the Methods section (in addition to some other parts of the research paper) is that it varies the structure and cadence of your sentences while maintaining an emphasis on the actual work. One can see how a paper becomes more readable when there isn’t constant emphasis on only one part of a sentence.

In the  Methods  and other sections of the manuscript, use the passive voice to redirect focus to the work being done—the object of the action or the action itself. When editing a manuscript , note this distinction in voice usage between the Methods section and other sections, as it is a common one in research writing.

3) When the recipient of the action is the topic of your sentence

It is sometimes necessary to use the passive voice to place the  most important information  at the beginning. By placing an item at the  beginning  of a sentence, you are putting it in the “topic position” (or “subject position”), indicating that it is the central element of your sentence.

Similarly, by placing a word at the  very end  of your sentence, you put it in the “stress position,” which is often used for words or phrases that modify or qualify the primary focus of your sentence. You can place words in these positions using passive or active constructions.

Active voice: “Scientists once  classified  slime molds as fungi, but they no longer  classify  them as part of that particular kingdom.” Passive voice: “Slime molds  were  once  classified  as fungi but  are  no longer  considered  to be part of that particular kingdom.”

In the first example, “scientists” occupies the topic position, and “part of that particular kingdom” is in the stress position. What might this ordering indicate to the reader? First, it shows that “scientists” is perhaps the main focus (or at least an important element) of this information. Second, by putting “part of that particular kingdom” at the end of the sentence, the author seems to be telling the reader that this qualifying information is also essential to understanding this information.

How might this information be interpreted differently in passive-voice construction? The main difference here is that “slime molds” are placed in the topic position, indicating that they are the primary focus of this information.

Privileging One Element Over Another in a Sentence

Which voice you use and how you order your sentence elements can make a big difference in establishing the importance of one element over another, especially when both of these are important to your study and neither involve the researcher.

In the following examples, there are at least two elements that the study focuses on. Reordering these by changing the voice makes the importance of these positions quite clear.

Active voice: “These amoeba coalesce into a multicellular, slug-like coordinated creature that  grows  into a fruiting body.” Passive voice: “This multicellular, slug-like coordinated creature, which eventually  grows  a fruiting body, is created by coalescing amoeba.”

In both of these sentences, the “amoeba” and the “multicellular, slug-like coordinated creature” are central; they seem to be essentially two parts of one process. This  process  is demonstrated through the active construction, which explains the life-cycle chronologically and therefore places emphasis on both elements (both agents) equally: “amoeba” and “fruiting body” (in the topic and stress position respectively) are at the beginning and end of this sentence and the particular part of the life cycle, with the information in the middle representing the transition between the two.

However, in the passive-voice construction, the “multicellular, slug-like coordinated creature” is in the topic position, the “amoeba” in the stress position, and the “fruiting body” in the middle is described (using a relative clause) as an outgrowth of this “creature.” This ordering completely shifts the focus of the sentence to the multicellular creature itself, with the other elements acting as supporting information. But because “amoeba” is still included in the sentence and is in the stress position, the author clearly wants to show its importance.

Combining the Active and Passive Constructions in a Sequence of Sentences

Whether introducing the purpose of your study in the  Introduction  section or suggesting further applications or studies in the  Discussion  and  Conclusion , you should try to combine conciseness and clarity of intention to create a logically cohesive structure. This can be done by combining passive and active constructions.

One way to achieve this is to create a structure that “connects backwards”—the final sentence in your paragraph or short sequence of sentences explains the purpose of the first sentence. Let’s see how this might work in action in the  Introduction  section.

Example of three cohesive sentences ( active—passive—passive ):

[Excerpt from “A Possible Correction of the Face Inversion Effect: A Methodological Commentary” (Rakover, Sam and Cahlon, Baruch)] “The present commentary concerns the face/object (UI) effect. This effect can be explained by appeal to either innate or learning factors. However, this effect  can  also be influenced by another factor, the ‘baseline-level,’ which is the focus of the present commentary.”

These three lines occur in sequence within the paper’s  Introduction  section. The first sentence clearly and directly explains the problem of the study (“the face/object (UI) effect”) using the active voice, setting the reader up for a further explanation to follow.

The second sentence, written in the passive voice, explores some potential directions from which this problem can be approached.

And the third sentence unites the two ideas, or “synthesizes” them, using a passive-voice construction. This third sentence has a parallel structure to the second and unites the problem and the proposed explanations using the word “influence” as a unifying action.

By focusing on the topic (“the effect”), the author can create a cohesive structure that uses sentences in both the active and passive voice. Such a passage flows naturally and is more comprehensible and enjoyable for the reader than separated sentences using the same voice construction.

Active and Passive Voice Guidelines

There are several good reasons to vary your sentences between active and passive voice:

• To place emphasis on the most important element of the sentence
• To cut down on word count (sometimes using active, sometimes using passive)
• To make your paper easier for the reader by creating variations in cadence and syntax

As a rule of thumb,  choose the active voice whenever possible.

Choose the passive voice  when there is good reason to do so. Consider passive voice when:

• The agent is unknown, unimportant, or obvious to the reader
• The agent is less important than the  action  of the sentence
• The agent is less important than the  topic  of the sentence
• One topic (among several) has greater importance

To ensure that your voice constructions follow style guidelines, as well as grammar rules, be sure to get paper proofreading services from a reputable English editing company like Wordvice.

Academic Resources:

• Springer.com.  “Stress Position”  https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/writinginenglish/stress-position/10252690
• Gopen GD, Swan JA. The science of scientific writing.  Am Scientist.  1990;78:550-558.
• Rakover, S., & CAHLON, B. (2014). A Possible Correction of the Face Inversion Effect: A Methodological Commentary.  The American Journal of Psychology,   127 (3), 303-311. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.3.0303 Website:  https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.3.0303?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
• Wordvice  Blog: “Which Tenses to Use in Your Research Paper.”  https://blog.wordvice.com/video-which-verb-tenses-should-i-use-in-a-research-paper/
• Wordvice  Blog: “How to Choose the Best Title for Your Manuscript.”  https://blog.wordvice.com/best-title-for-journal-manuscript/
• Wordvice YouTube Channel:  “ How to Create a Title for Your Research Paper .”
• Wordvice Blog:  “Choosing the Best Keywords for Your Paper.”  https://blog.wordvice.com/choosing-research-paper-keywords/
• Wordvice YouTube Channel:  “Parts of a Research Paper.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO6ipI-d2fw
• ScienceDocs  Inc. Blog: “5 Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Discussion.”  https://www.sciencedocs.com/writing-a-research-paper-discussion/ 

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(44); 2022 Nov 14

Proper Scholarly Writing for Non-Native English-Speaking Authors: Choosing Active and Passive Voice, Rewording, and Refining Texts

Takako kojima.

Center for International Education and Research, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.

Helena A. Popiel

The process of writing, revising, and submitting manuscripts to journals until they are accepted and published is a task that can often be demanding, especially for non-native English-speaking researchers. In order to improve the quality of writing, it is important for researchers to have a good understanding of scientific/medical terminology and grammar, as well as the organization and structure of research articles. 1 Furthermore, it is helpful for non-native English speakers to become familiar with common problems or difficulties faced by researchers when writing in a non-native language. 2 Here, we focus on ways to refine a manuscript by introducing four items; choosing the active voice over passive voice, rewording and rephrasing sentences, creating an attractive Discussion, and revising titles. This paper is unique in that we present actual examples from our experience as editors in medical writing in Japan, thereby enabling readers to clearly understand each item and to put it into context.

Choosing the Active and Passive Voice

The question of whether to use the active voice or passive voice has been debated by researchers for many years. For example, in the 1990s some journals actually recommended using the passive voice as it enables researchers to stand at a distance from their work, making it possible to reach an unbiased viewpoint. 3 However, over the years, there has been a shift in viewpoint and journals now usually recommend using the active voice.

As authors of scientific manuscripts may be aware it is important to follow internationally recognized standards or guidelines when preparing manuscripts. 4 The American Medical Association (AMA) Manual of Style, which are guidelines published by the American Medical Association state that in general, authors should use the active voice, except in instances in which the subject performing the action (actor) is unknown or the interest focuses on what is acted on. 5 It also mentions that in sentences in which the actor is already mentioned, the active voice is preferred over the passive voice. To explain this in more detail, here are some examples that are shown in the latest edition of the AMA Manual of Style. 6

Passive: “Data were collected from 5,000 patients by physicians.”

Passive: “Maintenance therapy and the clinical status of patients were evaluated every 6 months.”

In the first example, the interest focuses on the fact that data was collected. In the second example, the actor, or who evaluated the patients, is unknown so the passive voice is used.

Active : “Physicians collected data from 5,000 patients.”

Active : “We evaluated maintenance therapy and the clinical status of patients every 6 months.”

For these two examples using the active voice, both sentences mention the actor, and therefore the active voice is used. It can be noted that many journals favor researchers to use the active voice, and some directly recommend its use by mentioning this in the Instructions to Authors. The British Medical Journal states, “write in the active and use the first person where necessary” 7 and the author guidelines for Ophthalmology requests authors to use the active voice whenever possible. 8 By using the active voice, sentences become shorter and clearer and also give a stronger and livelier impression. This can be seen in an actual example from our editing, shown below.

Passive voice:

The diagnosis of Kawasaki disease was made, and treatment with aspirin was started. (13 words)

Active voice:

We diagnosed Kawasaki disease and started treatment with aspirin. (9 words)

Although there is no strict rule for choosing the active or passive voice, it can be understood by looking at the above example that it depends mainly on how much emphasis should be made, and to what. The sentence using the active voice emphasizes the person or object (‘we’) performing the action, whereas the sentence using the passive voice places emphasis on what was done (the disease was diagnosed) rather than on who did the action. With this in mind, it can be said that the passive voice is more applicable to the Methods and Results sections, but a good balance of the two voices is important to create a readable manuscript.

Rewording and Rephrasing

Another way to improve the quality of the manuscript can be through rewording and rephrasing. Many non-native English-speaking researchers have difficulty with linguistic issues, such as choice of words and phrases, and sentence structure, in addition to medical (academic) terminology. 9 Although it is possible to find examples of writing techniques from various manuals and the internet, we will introduce a few examples taken from actual manuscripts written by non-native English-speaking researchers that we have edited (with modifications as appropriate) as medical editors to point out why certain changes were made and how they improve the quality of writing.

Before revision:

In this study, we retrospectively revealed whether XX findings just before the YY procedure can affect the success rate of intravariceal injection, the recurrence rate of EVs, and the overall survival rate (OS).

After revision:

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed whether XX findings obtained just before the YY procedure are associated with the success rate of intravariceal injection, recurrence rate of EVs, and overall survival rate (OS) of patients.

Important points of revision

• ● “Revealed” is often used when physically showing something that was hidden, and researchers perform retrospective “analyses”, and hence this was changed to “analyzed”.
• ● “Findings just before endoscopic injection sclerotherapy” is missing a verb, and hence the verb “obtained” was inserted.
• ● “can affect” was changed to “are associated with”, as it is best to avoid using “can” in scientific texts, and here, as the relationship is not clear, “are associated with” was thought to be more appropriate.
• ● The two “the” were removed towards the end of the sentence, because although this is not incorrect, it becomes repetitive and difficult to read when there are multiple articles when listing many points.
• ● “of patients” was added to the end to make the object of the sentence clear.

The participants comprised of 1,773 males and 1,350 females and mean age was 37.3 ± 10.9 years.

Participants comprised 1,773 men and 1,350 women (mean age: 37.3 ± 10.9 years).

• ● “The” was removed as an article is often not required for plural nouns, if it is clear what the author is referring to.
• ● “Comprised of” was changed to “comprised”, which is the correct phrase, or alternatively, “composed of” can also be used.
• ● “Male” and “female” are recommended not to be used as nouns, but as adjectives, i.e., “male patients”, “female patients”, and hence were changed to “men” and “women”.
• ● As it is best to avoid the use of symbols in a sentence other than within parentheses, and for readability, the information of mean age was put within parentheses.

We also recommend referring to examples of correct usage of words and phrases in the AMA Manual of Style as this is a manual that is used widely by many researchers and medical editors. 4

How to Refine the Discussion Section

In order to create a well-written Discussion, it is important to be aware of some common criticisms from reviewers regarding the linguistic aspect, in addition to the results of the actual research, such as presenting sufficient evidence and data to support the results, etc. The main criticisms in terms of linguistics include, a section being too long, and the value of the study being unclearly stated. The following examples demonstrate how these problems can be overcome by the changes made.

XX and YY are considered to have the same pathological condition, and XX may be seen during the recovery period of YY. XX and YY are considered to have the same pathological condition, and XX may be seen during the recovery period of YY. In this case, only XX could be observed during the course. (55 words)

XX and YY are considered to be caused by the same pathological conditions, and XX may be seen during the recovery period of YY. In the present patient, only XX was observed during the disease course. (36 words)

• ● This paragraph had a repeating sentence, which often occurs when authors write and rewrite their manuscripts, and hence this was removed.
• ● “have” was changed to “be caused by” because OF and OC are diseases and not patients, and hence they are “caused by” the same pathological conditions.
• ● “Conditions” was made plural, as this was not just one condition but many, and in English writing things are generally written in the plural form, unless they are referring specifically to one of something.
• ● “This case” was changed to “the present patient” as this was referring to the patient having a disease. It is interesting to note that in Japanese, the rough equivalent of “case” can be used more flexibly to mean both “case” and “patient” in English, and hence this is a mistake that many Japanese writers make.

About the significant factors obtained by the univariate analysis, we have plotted ROC curve for predicting more than 5 × 10 4 /µL of the increase amount in XX count after YY intakes (Fig. 2). The significant ROC curve was obtained in the age, the eGFR, and the SI.

Regarding the significant factors obtained by univariate analysis, we plotted ROC curves for predicting patients who will achieve a more than 5 × 10 4 /µL increase in XX count after YY intake (Fig. 2). A statistically significant ROC curve was obtained for age, eGFR, and SI.

• ● “About the”, which is more colloquial, was changed to “Regarding”, which is more appropriate for scientific papers.
• ● “patients who will achieve a” was inserted into this sentence to clarify what the numbers are referring to.
• ● “amount” was removed as “count” is a similar word referring to the same point, and hence it is redundant.
• ● “curve” was changed to “curves” as the data was plural.
• ● “The significant” was changed to “A statistically significant” for clarity.
• ● “obtained in” was changed to “obtained for”, which is grammatically correct, and “for” was not added before each of the factors, because similar to “the”, this would be repetitive and difficult to read if there are multiple prepositions when listing many points.

Revising Titles

It is crucial to create an attractive title, which means that it should be concise and state the main point of the research/manuscript, to attract readers. Hong 10 states that this is important as researchers need to retrieve articles from databases using keywords, and as readers will first come across the title of a manuscript, the title will determine whether they will read the article or not.

Effect of anti-XX antibody on the YY soft tissue

Effects of the anti-XX antibody on YY soft tissue

• ● “Effects” was made plural, as this was not just one effect but many, and in English writing the plural form if generally used, unless referring specifically to one thing.
• ● The position of the article “the” was moved, as this study is referring to a specific antibody (which hence should have an article) and a type of tissue in general (which hence does not require an article).

The clinical outcome of the patients with XX variants of YY vertigo

Clinical outcomes of patients with XX variants of YY vertigo

• ● “The” was removed from before “patients”, as an article is often not required for plural nouns, if it is clear what the author is referring to. Furthermore, an article is generally not inserted at the beginning of a title, with an exception being titles starting with “A case of XX”.
• ● “Clinical outcomes” was made plural, as this was not just one outcome but many, and in English writing the plural form is generally used, unless referring specifically to one thing.

Preparing scientific manuscripts requires much effort and time, especially for non-native English-speaking researchers. However, refining and revising the manuscript demands further attention to details and precision. This, however, can be accomplished through education and considerable practice. Many associations now offer online writing seminars and workshops in scientific writing, 11 which can help researchers by providing a common space in which to learn as well as share common obstacles faced when preparing English language manuscripts. We hope that the examples shown here, of before and after revisions that we have come across as medical editors, and our summary of the main items ( Table 1 ) will help non-native English-speaking researchers towards improving the quality of manuscripts before submission.

We believe that with time, considerable effort and ample practice, the help of tools, such as the AMA Manual of Style, and keeping in mind the four points introduced in this manuscript, i.e., choosing the active voice over passive voice, rewording and rephrasing sentences, creating an attractive Discussion, and revising titles, non-native English-speaking researchers will be able to write clear and effective manuscripts.

Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Kojima T.
• Data curation: Kojima T, Popiel HA.
• Writing - original draft: Kojima T, Popiel HA.
• Writing - review & editing: Kojima T, Popiel HA.

Capstone Form and Style

Scholarly voice: active vs. passive voice, active vs. passive voice.

APA style encourages use of the active voice over passive voice for clarity. Writing in the active voice means the subject of the sentence clearly performs the action that the verb expresses. 

APA stresses using the active voice to make it clear to the reader who is taking action in the sentence. The reason is that the use of passive voice often makes it difficult for the reader to determine who is taking the action of the verb. In addition, the active voice stresses that the actor (or grammatical subject) precedes the verb, again, putting emphasis on the subject.

The order of words in a sentence with active voice is subject, verb, object.

• Example : I conducted a study of elementary school teachers.
• This sentence structure puts the emphasis of the sentence on the subject, clarifying who conducted the study. 
• Example : A study was conducted of elementary school teachers.
• In this sentence, it is not clear to the reader who conducted this study. 

Generally, in scholarly writing, with its emphasis on precision and clarity, the active voice is preferred. However, the passive voice is acceptable in some instances, for example:

• if the reader is aware of who the actor is;
• in expository writing, where the goal of the discussion is to provide background, context, or an in-depth explanation;
• if the writer wants to focus on the object or the implications of the actor’s action; or
• to vary sentence structure.  

Also, much like for anthropomorphism , different writing styles have different preferences. So, though you may see the passive voice used heavily in articles that you read for your courses and study, it does not mean that APA style advocates the same usage.

Examples of Writing in the Active Voice

Here are some examples of scholarly writing in the active voice:

• This is active voice because the subject in the sentence precedes the verb, clearly indicating who (I) will take the action (present).

Example : Teachers conducted a pilot study addressing the validity of the TAKS exam.

• Similarly, teachers (subject) clearly took the action (conducted) in this sentence.

Recognizing the Passive Voice

According to APA, writers should select verb tenses and voice carefully. Consider these examples to help determine which form of the verb is most appropriate:

Example : A study was conducted of job satisfaction and turnover.

• Here, it is not clear who did the conducting. In this case, the writer should revise this sentence to clarify who is doing the conducting. 

Example : I conducted a study of job satisfaction and turnover.

• This revised sentence clearly indicates the action taker. Using “I” to identify the writer’s role in the research process is often a solution to the passive voice (see APA 7, Section 4.16).

Using the past tense of the verb “to be” and the past participle of a verb together is often an indication of the passive voice. Here are some signs to look for in your paper:

• Example : This study was conducted.
• Example : Findings were distributed.

Another indication of passive voice is when the verb precedes the actor in the sentence. For example, even if the action taker is clearly identified, that actor should be the grammatical subject and come before the verb.

• Issue : Though the verb and the actor (action taker) are clearly identified here, to use the active voice , the writer should also place that actor, Rogers, before the verb. This improves clarity and word economy as well.
• Correct : Rogers (2016) conducted a study on nursing and turnover.
• Issue : Here, the actor follows the verb, which reduces emphasis and clarity.
• This revised sentence is in the active voice and clearly identifies the action takers and the action being taken.

Intentional Use of the Passive Voice

Sometimes, even in scholarly writing, the passive voice may be used intentionally and strategically. A writer may intentionally include the subject later in the sentence so as to reduce the emphasis and/or importance of the subject in the sentence. See the following examples of intentional passive voice to indicate emphasis:

Example : Schools not meeting AYP for 2 consecutive years will be placed on a “needs improvement” list by the State’s Department of Education.

• Here, all actors taking actions are identified, but this is in the passive voice as the State’s Department of Education is the actor doing the placing, but this verb precedes the actor. This may be an intentional use of the passive voice, to highlight schools not meeting AYP.
• To write this in the active voice, it would be phrased: “The State’s Department of Education will place schools not meeting AYP for 2 consecutive years on a “needs improvement” list. This sentence places the focus on the State’s Department of Education, not the schools.

Example : Participants in the study were incentivized with a $5 coffee gift card, which I gave them upon completion of their interview.

• As the writer and researcher, I may want to vary my sentence structure in order to avoid beginning several sentences with “I provided…” This example is written in the passive voice, but the meaning is clear.

Using Passive Voice in Scholarly Writing

As noted before, passive voice is allowed in APA style and can be quite appropriate, especially when writing about methods and data collection. However, students often overuse the passive voice in their writing, which means their emphasis in the sentence is not on the action taker. Their writing is also at risk of being repetitive. Consider the following paragraph in which the passive voice is used in each sentence:

A survey was administered . Using a convenience sample, 68 teachers were invited to participate in the survey by emailing them an invitation. Email addresses of teachers who fit the requirements for participation were provided by the principal of the school . The teachers were emailed an information sheet and a consent form. Responses were collected from 45 teachers… As you can see, the reader has no idea who is performing these actions, which makes the research process unclear. This is at odds with the goal of the methods discussion, which is to be clear and succinct regarding the process of data collection and analysis.

However, if translated entirely to the active voice, clearly indicating the researcher’s role, “I” becomes redundant and repetitive, interrupting the flow of the paragraph:

In this study, I administered a survey. I created a convenience sample of 68 teachers. I invited them to participate in the survey by emailing them an invitation. I obtained email addresses from the principal of the school… “I” is quite redundant here and repetitive for the reader.

The Walden Writing Center suggests that students use “I” in the first sentence of the paragraph . Then, as long as it is clear to the reader that the student (writer) is the actor in the remaining sentences, use the active and passive voices appropriately to achieve precision and clarity (where applicable):

In this study, I administered a survey using a convenience sample. Sixty-eight teachers were invited to participate in the survey. The principal of the school provided me with the email addresses of teachers who fit the requirements for participation. I emailed the teachers an information sheet and a consent form. A total of 45 teachers responded …

The use of the passive voice is complicated and requires careful attention and skill. There are no hard-and-fast rules. Using these guidelines, however, should help writers be clearer and more engaging in their writing, as well as achieving the intended purposes.

Remember, use voice strategically. APA recommends the active voice for clarity. However, the passive voice may be used, with intention, to remove the emphasis on the subject and also as a method for varying sentence structure. So, generally write in the active voice, but consider some of the above examples and some uses of the passive voice that may be useful to implement in your writing. Just be sure that the reader is always aware of who is taking the action of the verb.

• Previous Page: Precision and Clarity
• Next Page: Use of It
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

More about Passive Voice

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This handout will explain the difference between active and passive voice in writing. It gives examples of both, and shows how to turn a passive sentence into an active one. Also, it explains how to decide when to choose passive voice instead of active.

In a sentence using passive voice , the subject is acted upon; he or she receives the action expressed by the verb. The agent performing the action may appear in a "by the..." phrase or may be omitted.

The dog is acting upon the sentence subject (the boy), meaning it uses the passive voice.

This example sentence includes the passive voice because the subject (research) is being acted upon (presented) by another person (Pooja).

This is an example of the passive voice.

The subject of the passive voice sentence performs the action expressed in the verb in this example.

Reasons to Avoid Passive Voice

Sometimes the use of passive voice can create awkward sentences, as in the last example above. Also, overuse of passive voice throughout an essay can cause your prose to seem flat and uninteresting. In scientific writing, however, passive voice is more readily accepted since using it allows one to write without using personal pronouns or the names of particular researchers as the subjects of sentences (see the third example above). This practice helps to create the appearance of an objective, fact-based discourse because writers can present research and conclusions without attributing them to particular agents. Instead, the writing appears to convey information that is not limited or biased by individual perspectives or personal interests.

Recognizing Passive Voice

You can recognize passive-voice expressions because the verb phrase will always include a form of be, such as am, is, was, were, are, or been . The presence of a be-verb, however, does not necessarily mean that the sentence is in passive voice. Another way to recognize passive-voice sentences is that they may include a "by the..." phrase after the verb; the agent performing the action, if named, is the object of the preposition in this phrase.

Helpful Hint

You can recognize passive voice because the verb phrase will include a form of be (was, am, are, been, is). Don't assume that just because there is a form of 'be' that the sentence is passive, however. Sometimes a prepositional phrase like "by the" in the sentences above indicates that the action is performed on the subject, and that the sentence is passive.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

A Systemic Functional Approach to the Passive Voice in English into Spanish Translation: Thematic Development in a Medical Research Article

The purpose of this study was to explore, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Grammar, how passive clauses in a medical research article were translated into Spanish, specifically if they were kept in the passive voice, were changed into the active voice, or were turned into some other structure, and if voice change in the translated version affected the original thematic development. The medical paper chosen for this study was originally written in English and published in an Anglophone journal; it was then translated into Spanish and published in a Mexican journal. Both the original and the translated article were analyzed in terms of Theme and Rheme; all of the instances of passive and active voice were quantified and compared. The results show that in some cases the original thematic patterns were modified in the translation due to the use of the reflexive passive in Spanish, which results in the fronting of the verb in the sentences, thereby causing a change of Themes in the paragraphs with respect to the original structure. This study contributes to our understanding of the function of passive constructions in English and Spanish and its relationship with thematic progression.

Alvin, Leong P. 2014. The passive voice in scientific writing: The current norm in science journals. Journal of Science Communication 13 (1), 1-16. Search in Google Scholar

Amdur, Robert J., Jessica Kirwan, Christopher G. Morris. 2010. Use of the passive voice in medical journal articles. American Medical Writers Association Journal 25 (3), 98-110. Search in Google Scholar

Arús, Jorge. 2006. Perspectiva sistémico-funcional de los usos de ‘se’ en Español [Systemic functional perspective on the uses of ‘se’ in Spanish]. Signos 61, 131-159. Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight, Ellen Valle. 2012. Corpus analysis of scientific and medical writing across time. In Chapelle, Carol A. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Malden: Blackwell, 1347-1353. Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, Karen. 2009. English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8 (1), 43-54. Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358 Search in Google Scholar

Canter, David, Gavin Fairbairn. 2006. Becoming a author: Advice for academics and other professionals. Berkshire: Open University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Daneš, Frantisek. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš, Frantisek (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia, 106-128. Search in Google Scholar

Day, Robert A., Nancy Sakaduski. 2011. Scientific English: A guide for scientists and other professionals (3rd. edn.). Santa Barbara: Greenwood. Search in Google Scholar

Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd edn.). London: Continuum. Search in Google Scholar

Fries, Peter H. 1983. On the status of theme in English: Arguments from discourse. In Petöfi, Janos S., Emel Sözer (eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 116-152. Search in Google Scholar

Fries, Peter H. 1994. On Theme, Rheme and discourse goals. In Coulthard, Malcolm (ed.), Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge, 229-249. Search in Google Scholar

Gómez, María de los Ángeles, Ana P. García. 2014. Discourse-organizational patterns in English and Spanish: Some notes on the thematic management of news reports. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 27 (1), 87-117. Search in Google Scholar

Goodman, Neville W., Martin B. Edwards. 2006. Medical writing: A prescription for clarity (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511543517 Search in Google Scholar

Gotti, Maurizio, Françoise Salager-Meyer (eds.). 2006. Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978-3-0351-0396-0 Search in Google Scholar

Gutiérrez, Bertha M. 1997. La influencia del inglés sobre nuestro lenguaje médico [The influence of English in our medical language]. Medicina Clínica, 108 (8), 307-313. Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985/1994. An introduction to functional grammar (1st, 2nd edn.). London: Arnold. Search in Google Scholar

Hidalgo, Raquel. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice in Spanish: From passive to inverse? In Givón, Thomas (ed.), Voice and inversion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 169-186. Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20 (3), 207-226. Search in Google Scholar

Mann, William C., Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8 (3), 243-281. 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 Search in Google Scholar

Martínez, Iliana A. 2001. Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure. English for Specific Purposes 20 (3), 227-247. Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, Janice R., Robert W. Matthews. 2014. Successful scientific writing: A step-by-step guide for the biological and medical sciences (4th edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107587915 Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2006. Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. In Thompson, Geoff, Susan Hunston (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections. London: Equinox, 103-142. Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2014. Appliable Discourse Analysis. In Yan, Fang, Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Developing Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and application. London: Equinox, 138-208. Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M., Kazuhiro Teruya, Marvin Lam. 2010. Key terms in systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum. Search in Google Scholar

Nwogu, Kevin N. 1997. The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes 16 (2), 119-138. Search in Google Scholar

O’Donnell, Michael. 2004. RSTTool, version 3.45 [Computer software]. South Bridge: WagSoft. Search in Google Scholar

Perales, Moisés, John Swales. 2011. Tracing convergence and divergence in pairs of Spanish and English research article abstracts: The case of Ibérica. Ibérica 21, 49-70. Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, et al. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman. Search in Google Scholar

Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 149-171. Search in Google Scholar

Salazar, Danica, Aaron Ventura, Isabel Verdaguer. 2013. A cross-disciplinary analysis of personal and impersonal features in English and Spanish scientific writing. In Verdaguer, Isabel, Natalia J. Laso, Danica Salazar (eds.), Biomedical English: A corpus-based approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 121-143. Search in Google Scholar

Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Takagaki, Toshihiro. 2005. On the productivity of the Spanish passive constructions. In Takagaki, Toshihiro, Susumu Zaima, Yoichiro Tsuraga, et al. (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to sentence structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 289-309. Search in Google Scholar

Tarone, Elaine, Sharon Dwyer, Susan Gillette, et al. 1998. On the use of the passive and active voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes 17 (1), 113-132. Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, Robert B. 2005. The clinician’s guide to medical writing. Portland: Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Teich, Elke. 1999. Systemic Functional Grammar in natural language generation: Linguistic description and computational representation. London: Cassell. Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoffrey. 1996. Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold. Search in Google Scholar

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same issue.