Active Voice

011 min

Takeaways

• What it is: the subject performs the verb's action, rather than receiving it
• Origin: a 1918 style rule from Strunk, echoed by Orwell in 1946
• Use it when: readers need to know who did what
• Watch for: rewriting sentences that were never passive at all

021 min

The problem Active Voice solves

Passive voice lets a sentence describe an action while leaving out who did it. The sentence "serious mistakes were made" is grammatical and complete, yet it names no one. In his 1987 State of the Union address, after admitting that an arms deal with Iran had failed, President Ronald Reagan told Congress: "But we did not achieve what we wished, and serious mistakes were made in trying to do so." The sentence reports an error without assigning it to a person. That gap is what active voice fixes: a sentence can be true and complete and still hide who is answerable for it.

Burying the actor is also a framing-effect: the same event, told with no doer, reads as something that simply happened rather than something someone did. The reader pays the cost of that framing first. The writer loses nothing — the sentence still parses, the report still gets filed. The reader is the one left asking who approved the delay or missed the deadline, with no name in the sentence to ask about. It often happens without any intent to hide anything: curse-of-knowledge leads a writer who already knows who did what to drop the actor, assuming it's obvious, when the reader coming to the sentence cold has no way to fill in the blank.

032 min

How Active Voice works

Active and passive voice arrange the same three parts of a sentence in a different order: the doer, the verb, and whatever the verb acts on.

In the active sentence, "the engineer" is the subject, and the subject is doing the fixing. In the passive sentence, "the bug" — the thing being fixed — moves into the subject position, and "the engineer" moves into an optional phrase starting with "by." That phrase is the mechanism's hinge: it can be deleted without breaking the sentence's grammar. "The bug was fixed" is complete English with no doer named anywhere. Federal plain-language guidelines name the same two-part test for spotting a passive sentence: a form of "to be" followed by a past participle, usually ending in "-ed."

That deletion is what William Strunk Jr. was pointing at in 1918, in the rule that opens The Elements of Style's chapter on active voice. He wrote that "the active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive," then compared "I shall always remember my first visit to Boston" with its passive twin, "My first visit to Boston will always be remembered by me." He went one step further and cut "by me": "My first visit to Boston will always be remembered" is still grammatical, but now it is unclear whose memory the sentence reports. Strunk asked directly: "is it the writer, or some person undisclosed, or the world at large, that will always remember this visit?" Losing the "by" phrase does not just shorten a sentence. It erases the one piece of information — who — that the active version supplied automatically.

Without an actor named in the sentence, working out who did what falls on the reader's working-memory: holding the action in mind while scanning the rest of the paragraph for a name that may never arrive. Active voice puts the doer where a reader looks first — the subject — so nothing about who acted has to be reconstructed later. The same guidelines that supply the "to be" plus past-participle test give a policy example of the same deletion: "We proposed new regulations" against "New regulations were proposed," where the second version drops the agency that did the proposing.

041 min

Where Active Voice comes from

William Strunk Jr., a Cornell English professor, self-published The Elements of Style in 1918 and made "use the active voice" one of its rules of composition. E.B. White, a former student of his, kept the rule when he expanded the book into its widely read 1959 edition. George Orwell reached the same conclusion independently: his 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" told writers to "never use the passive where you can use the active." Both are writing advice from working writers, not a finding from linguistic research.

051 min

Before and after

Picture an engineering lead sending a status update to their director after a release slips by a week.

Before: A decision was made to delay the release, and the remaining API changes were not completed in time. It is expected that the work will be finished by Friday, and the customer will be informed once it ships.

After: I decided to delay the release because the API changes weren't finished. I'll have the work done by Friday, and I'll tell the customer once it ships.

Three things change between the versions. The subject moves from "a decision" to "I," so the director knows who made the call. The passive "were not completed" becomes "weren't finished," stating the same fact in fewer words. And "it is expected that" — a phrase that hides whose expectation it is — becomes "I'll," a plain commitment with a name attached, twice. The After version isn't softer or harsher than the Before version. It answers a question the Before version left open: who is accountable for the delay, for finishing the work, and for telling the customer.

061 min

A script to use tomorrow

Next time a status update tempts you into "a decision was made" or "it was agreed," paste this instead and fill in the brackets:

"I decided [what changed] because [the reason]. [Who] will handle [what happens next], by [date]."

Filling in every bracket is what actually forces the rewrite. A passive sentence lets you leave "who" blank; this script doesn't. That's the same trick a well-designed form uses: a required field is a forcing-function that makes you supply information you might otherwise skip. Say it out loud once before you send it. If a bracket is hard to fill in, that isn't a writing problem — it means nobody has actually decided who owns the next step yet.

071 min

The overuse trap

Treated as an absolute rule, "avoid the passive" curdles into a different failure: rewriting sentences that were never passive to begin with. Federal plain-language guidelines give the actual test — a form of "to be" plus a past participle, as in "was fixed" — because plenty of ordinary sentences use "was" or "is" without being passive at all: "I was tired," "the meeting was long." A writer chasing the rule mechanically edits both, and the sentence gets clumsier, not clearer. Grammarians have a name for over-applying a rule past the cases it was meant for: hypercorrection.

The same overcorrection shows up when the actor genuinely does not matter. "The office is closed for the holiday" does not need "Someone closed the office" bolted on, because nobody asked who closed it. Forcing an actor into every sentence hits diminishing-returns fast: the first few rewrites remove real ambiguity, and the next dozen just add invented subjects nobody needed. The tell that it has tipped over is a document full of "we," "the team," and "I" in places where the actor was never in question — active voice used as decoration instead of information.

081 min

Active Voice vs. nearby concepts

The nearest confusion is with tense. Federal plain-language guidelines state the distinction directly: "Don't confuse passive voice with past tense." Tense says when something happened — past, present, or future. Voice says whether the subject performs the action or receives it. "The team is shipping the update" is active and present tense. "The update was shipped last week" is passive and past tense, but so is "The team shipped the update last week" — same tense, opposite voice. A sentence can carry any combination of the two, and changing one does not change the other.

The second confusion is with concise writing generally. Active voice often produces a shorter sentence, but shortness is not the test. "The cat sat on the mat" is active and could still be padded into something long. "Mistakes were made" is passive and is already about as short as English gets. The deciding axis is narrower than either tense or length: does the subject do the verb's action, or have it done to them? Everything else — how long the sentence runs, when the action happened — is a separate question a writer can get right or wrong independently of voice.

092 min

Where the evidence is contested

The strongest objection to "avoid the passive" is that its most famous advocate could not follow it. Orwell's own 1946 essay opens with a passive sentence: "Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it." Linguist David Beaver flagged the irony on the Language Log blog, asking why Orwell did not write "people generally assume" instead — shorter, grammatical, and not passive. Beaver's answer: "because the passive is slightly better here." The sentence is about the assumption, not about who holds it, so the passive construction puts the emphasis where the sentence needs it.

Beaver's point cuts deeper than one caught mistake. If a rule this simple gets broken by the writer who is most famous for stating it, in the sentence introducing it, the rule cannot be a mechanical substitute for judgment about what a sentence is actually trying to say. Passive voice is the right call whenever the receiver of the action is what the sentence is about and the doer is unknown, unimportant, or already understood — "the bridge was built in 1937" does not need its construction crew named to do its job.

Strunk himself made the same concession in the very rule that started this. Right after asking whose memory an agentless sentence reports, he added: "this rule does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." Where this leaves a writer: treat active voice as the default, because it is the version more likely to name an actor a reader needs. But run the check Strunk himself ran on his own example — try converting the sentence, and ask whether the passive version loses something a reader actually needed, or whether it was quietly doing the more useful job. If nothing is lost, keep the passive. Rules about voice are advice from writers, not a grammatical law, and the exceptions are as real as the rule.

?7 questions

Questions people ask

▶3 videos

Watch

• 

  Understanding Active Voice

• 

  Active voice to passive voice in telugu | learn active voice and passive voice in 15 minutes

  SumanTV Education

• 

  Active and Passive Voice Trick | Active Voice and Passive Voice in English Grammar | DSSSB, RRB D

  Dear Sir

§5 sources

Sources