This article claims that two social values in science—falsifiability of science and cooperation among scientists—determine use of passives in scientific communication. Scientists do not always develop valid theories, so scientific experiments must be amenable to being repeated and found invalid. This requires that the experiments must not be discrete events. Science is also a cooperative enterprise. As an integral part of science, scientific writing employs more passives than actives to focus on materials, methods, figures, processes, tables, concepts, etc. Use of passives to focus on the physical world helps de-emphasize discreteness of scientific experiments. Besides, it also helps remove personal qualifications of observing experimental results. Finally, it enhances cooperation among working scientists by providing a common knowledge base of scientific work—things and objects. Looked at in this way, the passive voice in scientific writing represents professional practices of science instead of personal stylistic choices of individual scientists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BazermanC., Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre And Activity of the Experimental Article in Science, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1988.
2.
RodmanL., The Active Voice in Scientific Articles: Frequency and Discourse Functions, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24, pp. 309–331, 1994.
3.
HarmonJ. E., An Analysis of Fifty Citation Superstars from the Scientific Literature, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 22, pp. 17–37, 1992.
4.
GrossA. G., Does Rhetoric of Science Matter? The Case of the Floppy-Eared Rabbits, College English, 53, pp. 933–943, 1991.
5.
TaroneE., On the Use of the Passive Voice in Two Astrophysical Journal Papers, The EST Journal, 1, pp. 123–139, 1981.
6.
WilkinsonA. W., Jargon and the Passive Voice: Prescriptions and Proscriptions for Scientific Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 22, pp. 319–325, 1992.
7.
RileyK., Passive Voice and Rhetorical Role in Scientific Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21, pp. 239–257, 1991.
8.
DingD., Rationality Reborn: Historical Roots the Passive Voice in Scientific Discourse, in Essays in the Study of Scientific Discourse: Methods, Practice, and Pedagogy, BattalioJ. (ed.), Ablex Publishing Company, Greenwich, Connecticut, pp. 117–134, 1998.
9.
MeadowsA. J., Communicating in Science, Butterworth, London, 1974.
10.
MulkayM. J. and EdgeD. D., Cognitive, Technical and Social Factors in the Growth of Radio Astronomy, Social Science Information, 12, pp. 22–61, 1973.
11.
PopperK. R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge, London, 1963.
12.
Newton-SmithW. H., The Rationality of Science, Routledge, Boston, 1981.
13.
KuhnT. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.
14.
ToulminS., Human Understanding, Vol. I, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972.
15.
BaconF., The Works of Francis Bacon, SpeddingJ.EllisR. L., and HeathD. D. (eds.), 15 volumes, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1900. (Cited in text by volume and page numbers.)
16.
JonesR. F., Ancients and Moderns: A Study of the Rise of the Scientific Movement in Seventh-Century England, Washington University Press, St. Louis, 1961.
17.
GastonJ., Secretiveness and Competition for Priority in Physics, Minerva, 9, pp. 472–492, 1971.
18.
GilbertG. N., Competition, Differentiation and Careers in Science, Social Science Information, 16, pp. 103–123, 1977.
19.
BazermanC., How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate, in Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, BazermanC. and ParadisJ. (eds.), University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 13–44, 1999.
20.
MertonR. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, StorerN. W. (ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.
21.
KnorrK. D., Producing and Reproducing Knowledge: Descriptive or Constructive? Toward a Model of Research Production, Social Science Information, 16, pp. 669–696, 1977.
TarantinoM., English for Science and Technology: A Quest for Legitimacy, English for Specific Purposes, 10, pp. 47–60, 1990.
24.
BarrassR., Scientists Must Write, Chapman and Hall, London, 1978.
25.
SamuelsM. S., Is Technical Communication ‘Literature’: Current Writing Scholarship and Vico's Cycles of Knowledge, Iowa State Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 1, pp. 48–67, 1987.
26.
KnorrK. D., Tinkering Toward Success: Prelude to a Theory of Scientific Practice, Theory and Society, 8, pp. 347–376, 1979.
27.
Ben-DavidJ., Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science, FreudenthalG. (ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990.
28.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG., and SvartvikJ., A Grammar of Contemporary English, Seminar, New York, 1972.
29.
AtkinsonD., The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A Sociohistorical Discourse Analysis, Language in Society, 25, pp. 333–371, 1996.
30.
LaemmliU. K., Cleavage of Structural Proteins During the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4, Nature, 227, pp. 680–685, 1970.
31.
KoppleVande W. J., Some Characteristics and Functions of Grammatical Subjects in Scientific Discourse, Written Communication, 11, pp. 534–564, 1994.
32.
DayR. A., How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (3rd Edition), Oryx, Phoenix, 1988.
33.
DearP., Totius in verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society, Isis, 76, pp. 145–161, 1985.
34.
CampbellP. N., The Personae of Scientific Discourse, The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, pp. 391–405, 1975.
35.
LongR. B., The Sentence and Its Parts: A Grammar of Contemporary English, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1961.
36.
BradfordM. M., A Rapid and Sensitive Method for the Quantitation of Microgram Quantities of Protein Utilizing the Principle of Protein-Dye Binding, Analytical Chemistry, 72, pp. 248–254, 1976.
37.
WoolgarS., Discovery: Logic and Sequence in a Scientific Text (1), in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, KnorrK. D.KrohnR., and WhitleyR. (eds.), Dordrecht, D. Reidel, Holland, pp. 238–268, 1981.
38.
MaxamA. M. and GilbertW., A New Method for Sequencing DNA, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 74, pp. 560–564, 1977.
39.
MortensenK.SkouvJ.HougaardD. M., and LarssonL., Endogenous Endothelial Cell Nitric-Oxide Synthase Modulates Apoptosis in Cultured Breast Cancer Cells and Is Transcriptionally Regulated by p53, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 274, pp. 37679–37684, 1999.
40.
WlesmannC.UttschM. H.BassS. H., and de VosA. M., Crystal Structure of Nerve Growth Factor in Complex with the Ligand-Binding Domain of the TrkA Receptor, Nature, 401, pp. 184–188, 1999.
41.
KoppleVande W. J., Noun Phrases and the Style of Scientific Discourse, in A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy, WittS. P.NakadateN., and CherryR. D. (eds.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 328–348, 1992.
42.
KohliP.TaylorK. K.HarrisJ. J., and BlanchardG. J., Assembly of Covalently-Coupled Disulfide Multilayers on Gold, Journal of American Chemical Society, 120, pp. 11962–11968, 1998.
43.
DingD., Object-Centered Writing: How Engineering Writing Embodies Objects: A Study of four Engineering Documents, Technical Communication, 48: 3, 2001.
