Discourse analysis can examine many syntactic structures, and passive voice is only one of those. Martina Temmerman (2018) states, "Linguistic discourse analysis starts from the data and typically works bottom up: it looks for recurring patterns in specific discourses" (p. 126). The patterns observed with passive voice are not merely single occurrences; they have been observed over time from countless politicians and public figures. The motivations to employ passive structure align with predictable maxims. In most cases, passivization is used by politicians to apply end-focus, to avoid blame, or for an unknown agent. Temmerman (2018) continues to explain how discourse analysis can "be an element in an interdisciplinary approach to link linguistic characteristics to social behavior, and to overarching beliefs and values" (p. 126). A speaker's values and intentions can be revealed by exploring not only their words, but also their sentence construction.
According to prescriptivists, writers should avoid passive voice whenever possible; however, passive voice can convey a unique meaning from active voice. In scientific and research writings, passivization is essential in focusing on lab results instead of the roles and positions of the scientists. In journalism and international affairs, passive voice can remove an agent when perpetrators of violence are unknown. While this may show bias, it more often helps to maintain diplomatic ties by not placing blame on foreign powers prematurely. But passive voice is not always entirely innocuous.
Politicians using passive voice is not decidedly wrong, as prescriptivists have claimed. George Lakoff expresses, "Language has to do with grammar and intonation, presupposition, I mean I study language and language is very complicated; words are only part of that" (2019). Lakoff concedes that merely looking at words and syntax cannot determine a speaker's values or motives, but by looking at the entire utterance and the context, deeper meaning and standpoints can be analyzed. As constituents, people should examine how and why politicians form their sentences. Looking at passive voice, one can observe a speaker's motives and frame by which they affirm their beliefs.
According to prescriptivists, writers should avoid passive voice whenever possible; however, passive voice can convey a unique meaning from active voice. In scientific and research writings, passivization is essential in focusing on lab results instead of the roles and positions of the scientists. In journalism and international affairs, passive voice can remove an agent when perpetrators of violence are unknown. While this may show bias, it more often helps to maintain diplomatic ties by not placing blame on foreign powers prematurely. But passive voice is not always entirely innocuous.
Politicians using passive voice is not decidedly wrong, as prescriptivists have claimed. George Lakoff expresses, "Language has to do with grammar and intonation, presupposition, I mean I study language and language is very complicated; words are only part of that" (2019). Lakoff concedes that merely looking at words and syntax cannot determine a speaker's values or motives, but by looking at the entire utterance and the context, deeper meaning and standpoints can be analyzed. As constituents, people should examine how and why politicians form their sentences. Looking at passive voice, one can observe a speaker's motives and frame by which they affirm their beliefs.