学术写作中的主动语态与被动语态
优先使用主动语态,让施事一目了然;仅当行为的承受者应居前时才用被动。本页遵循 Cal State Fullerton 2026 年 PATH 指南转载的 APA 7 §§4.13 与 4.16、在 §5.122 定义语态的 CMOS 18 索引条目、Nature Portfolio 的写作指引,以及 UNC 的 Passive Voice 与 Should I Use “I”? 讲义。这里处理的是语态抉择。它不是语法错误中的错误地图,也不是如何写得清晰中的用词改写。
作者:CitationEasy Editorial Team阅读约 18 分钟

本页内容
如何选择主动与被动语态:简要答案
APA Style 允许两种语态,然后告诉你应先伸手去用哪一种。描述人们做了什么时,先写施事,再写动词,再写宾语。当实验、样本或结果才是重点,而施事只会让句子臃肿时,再改用被动。Chicago 的用法问答补上规则的另一半:不要把清除被动当作政策,也不要用它来掩盖谁采取了行动。
模板(填入你真实的施事与行为)
主动(默认):
施事 + 动词 + 宾语。示例形态:We interviewed 40 nurses.
被动(有意为之):
承受者 + be + 过去分词(+ by 施事)。示例形态:Participants were randomly assigned to conditions.
独立作者的 APA 论文:
写自己的工作时用 I:I coded the transcripts.
合著的 APA 论文:
指全体作者时用 we:We coded the transcripts.
不要这样写:
The researcher coded the transcripts. / It was found that…
American Psychological Association 在 Active and passive voice 页阐明这一优先(Publication Manual,第 7 版,§4.13;Concise Guide §2.13)。Style Center 本身常常拦截自动抓取;下面的措辞是该页的 CSUF PATH 2026 转载:
APA Style, “Active and passive voice”(CSUF PATH 2026 转载)
Both the active and the passive voice are permitted in APA Style. However, writers often overuse the passive voice.
Use the active voice as much as possible to create direct, clear, and concise sentences, especially when you are writing about the actions of people.
Use the passive voice when it is more important to focus on the recipient of an action than on who performed the action, such as when describing an experimental setup.
什么是主动语态与被动语态
语态是关于动词及其主语的事实,不是正式程度的尺度。CMOS 18 索引在 §5.122 定义该术语(主动语态也出现在 §§5.21、5.119、5.123、5.139 和 5.198)。公开的 用法问答 在未另作标明时,仍把编辑指向第 17 版 §5.118 的段落;第 18 版索引把定义挪到了 §5.122。主动语态中,主语执行动词。被动语态中,主语承受动词。只有及物动词——能带宾语的动词——才有这种对照。"The data are robust" 不是被动:are 是命名状态的系动词,不是施加于数据的行为。
APA Style 自己的一对(CSUF PATH 2026 转载)
主动:
the children ate the cookies
被动,点名施事:
the cookies were eaten by the children
被动,省略施事——APA 的警告:
the cookies were eaten
did the children eat the cookies, or was it the dog?
UNC Writing Center 给出一项不必借助语法检查器就能在草稿上运行的检验:
UNC Writing Center, “Passive Voice”
form of “to be” + past participle = passive voice
Why was the road crossed by the chicken?
做穿越动作的是鸡,但 road 才是语法主语。熟悉的主动形式把施事放在前面:why did the chicken cross the road?
浪费一轮修改的迷思
UNC 开篇列出被动语态不是什么。把这些当作修改过滤器,而不是体例手册里的传说。
UNC Writing Center 的迷思,附官方反例
- 被动语态不是语法错误。它是清晰度上的选择。
- to be 动词并不自动就是被动。"John is a good student" 描述的是状态。
- 第一人称并不自动就是主动。你可以写出第一人称的被动句。
- "Never use the passive" 本身就是迷思。有些句子那样写更清楚。
- 语法检查器只抓到一小部分被动,因为它们并不是在标记错误。
UNC 的第一人称被动:
I was hit by the dodgeball.
UNC 的存在状态(不是被动):
John is a good student
APA 7 何时要主动语态
当一个人做了读者需要追踪的事时,伸手去用主动语态:谁招募、谁编码、谁论证、谁建议。APA Style 教学辅导材料(“Let’s Get Active: Active Voice”,最近一次更新于 2023 年 11 月 7 日)用课堂语言重述 §4.13,然后给出一句公共卫生句子——若改成被动,施事就会消失。
APA Style 教学辅导材料,“Let’s Get Active: Active Voice”(2023 年 11 月 7 日)
To create direct, clear, and concise sentences, especially when you are writing about the actions of people, use the active voice.
辅导材料中的主动例句:
Health department officials reported data on the spread of the COVID-19 Pirola variant.
同一材料中的课堂配对:
The teacher gave scratch paper to the students before they took their test.
The scratch paper was given to the students by their teacher before they took their test.
那句公共卫生句子用主动,是因为官员才是重点。"Data were reported on the spread of the COVID-19 Pirola variant" 会藏起数字背后的机构。把同一检验用到你自己的方法与讨论句上:若读者有理由问 who,就把他们写出来。
何时被动语态才是正确选择
APA 7 §4.13 把被动留给实验设置,以及其他职责在于承受者而非技术员的句子。教学辅导材料中关于土壤质量的句子是官方已做完的案例。UNC 补充三种被动并非回避的情形:你想把宾语放在前面、你不知道施事,或读者不需要施事。
被动值得保留的官方情形
APA Style 教学辅导材料(实验设置):
The soil quality experiment was conducted in three stages—each stage judging the improvement of the soil when infused with a substantial number of unknown organic ingredients.
UNC,强调宾语:
One hundred votes are required to pass the bill.
UNC,倾倒者不明:
Over 120 different contaminants have been dumped into the river.
UNC,读者不需要产科医生:
Baby Sophia was delivered at 3:30 a.m. yesterday.
UNC 自己对出生通告的注释就是决策规则:家人和朋友关心的是婴儿,不是 Dr. Susan Jones;医院交班报告则可能点名医生。把这一点用到方法段落。"Samples were centrifuged at 4 °C" 在任何受过训练的技术员都会做同一步时完全可以。"We excluded three outliers after inspecting the residuals" 不是程序。它是判断,APA 要把判断者放在主语位置。
第一人称并不等于主动语态
学生仍带着一条规则到来:学术散文不得说 I 或 we。APA Style 称之为迷思,并从 1974 年 Publication Manual 第二版起就这样说。第 4.16 节(Concise Guide §2.16)要求用第一人称写自己的工作和观点,以免读者猜测 "the researcher" 是你还是你所引用的人。独立作者用 I。合著者用 we。不要用 we 来表示“一般人”。下面的措辞是该页的 Alamo Colleges 转载(最近一次更新于 2026 年 5 月 29 日)。
APA Style, “First-person pronouns”(Alamo Colleges 转载,2026 年 5 月 29 日)
Use first-person pronouns in APA Style to describe your work as well as your personal reactions.
正确,独立作者:
I explored treatments for social anxiety.
Do not use the third person to refer to yourself.
避免:
The author explored treatments for social anxiety.
应避免的编辑性 we:
We often worry about what other people think of us.
已限定范围的 we:
As young adults, we often worry about what other people think of us.
较早的 APA Style 博文 “Me, Me, Me”(2014 年 5 月 15 日)仍是 §4.16 的白话版本:
APA Style 博客,Chelsea Lee, “Me, Me, Me”(2014 年 5 月 15 日)
If you did something, say, “I did it”—there’s no reason to hide your own agency by saying “the author [meaning you] did X” or to convolute things by using the passive “X was done [meaning done by you].”
UNC 的 Should I Use “I”? 讲义拆开学生常混在一起的两个问题:要不要写 I,以及要不要叙述亲身经历。你可以做前者而不做后者。讲义自己的配对表明,第一人称何时澄清施事,何时只是给已经很明显的立场加填料。
UNC Writing Center, “Should I Use “I”?”
UNC,第一人称澄清是谁在探究:
In studying American popular culture of the 1980s, the question of to what degree materialism was a major characteristic of the cultural milieu was explored.
UNC 的改写:
In our study of American popular culture of the 1980s, we explored the degree to which materialism characterized the cultural milieu.
UNC,去掉信念宣告:
I think that Aristotle’s ethical arguments are logical and readily applicable to contemporary cases, or at least it seems that way to me.
UNC 的改写:
Aristotle’s ethical arguments are logical and readily applicable to contemporary cases.
MLA Style Center 强制性较弱,也更实用。Michael Kandel 告诉人文学者把 I 当作工具,既不是禁词,也不是硬性要求:
MLA Style Center,Michael Kandel, “Using ‘I’ in Academic Writing”
Let the first-person singular be, instead, a tool that you take out when you think it’s needed and that you leave in the toolbox when you think it’s not.
Kandel 主张把它拿出来的情形:你在叙述一项发现、描述自己如何教学、在不声称绝对真理的前提下与另一位学者异议,或你需要 I 才能保持清楚直接。他主张把它留在工具箱里的情形:I 出现得太密以至于刺眼,以及用 "I believe" 或 "it seems to me." 给已经很明显的立场加填料。
期刊要求与实验报告可能要求的差异
STEM 期刊多年来一直转向主动语态;那已是成文规则,不是氛围。Nature Portfolio 在现行 "How to write your paper" 核对表中告诉作者写清楚、直接的句子,然后点名它想要的结构。
Nature Portfolio, “How to write your paper”
Write clear and direct sentences. Using the active voice (‘we performed the experiment...’) typically helps readers better understand concepts and results described in a paper.
这不是二十一世纪的时髦。Watson and Crick 1953 年 4 月 25 日的 Nature 信函——"Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid"——以第一人称复数开篇。期刊页上的首字下沉 W 在后来的扫描件里很容易被忽略;那句话是 We wish…。JAMA 1993 年转载与 Exploratorium 注释文本带有同样的开头。
Watson and Crick,Nature 171(1953 年 4 月 25 日):737
We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest.
UNC 仍提醒:你的课程未必遵循 Nature。有些教师希望从实验报告中拿掉施事,尤其是 Materials and Methods:写 "then the human genome was sequenced",而不是 "then we sequenced the human genome." 在把整节方法改写成 we 之前先问清楚。即便如此,UNC 的科学例句表明,你也可以不用第一人称而保持主动。
UNC Writing Center,不藏起施事的科学写作
被动的科学句(UNC):
A number of things are indicated by these results.
不用 we 的主动:
These results indicate a number of things.
被动的临床句(UNC):
The balloon is positioned in an area of blockage and is inflated.
点名临床医生:
The surgeon positions the balloon in an area of blockage and inflates it.
施事缺失(UNC):
Heart disease is considered the leading cause of death in the United States.
点名研究者:
Researchers have concluded that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States.
| 情境 | 通常选择 | 原因 |
|---|---|---|
| APA 方法:你的判断 | 主动第一人称 | §4.16 要 I 或 we,不要 "the researcher." |
| APA 方法:标准仪器步骤 | 被动可以接受 | §4.13:设置比技术员更重要。 |
| Nature、Science 和许多 STEM 期刊 | 主动,通常用 we | Nature 现行作者页点名 "we performed the experiment..." |
| 评分表禁止 I/we 的课程实验报告 | 若要求则在 Methods 用被动 | UNC:听从教师;期刊不是评分者。 |
| 历史或文学论文 | 主动;点名施事 | UNC:"The working class was marginalized" 藏起了做出此事的制度。 |
| 建议与启示 | 主动 | 点名的施事可以被动词约束:机构应当、学校应当、我们应当。 |
历史与人文学科:点名施事
在历史或文学论文里,缺失的施事往往就是整个论点。UNC 的美国史三句是失败模式:句子报告结果,却把原因、制度和决策者留在页外。同一讲义的人类学例子点名了通过法律的政党。在概述一位批评家时,不要躲进 "It is argued that…"。
UNC Writing Center,历史、人类学与文学分析
懒惰的被动(UNC):
The working class was marginalized. African Americans were discriminated against. Women were not treated as equals.
UNC 人类学论文,施事缺失:
A new system of drug control laws was set up.
点名机构:
The Lao People’s Revolutionary Party set up a new system of drug control laws.
藏起小说家的情节概述:
Tom and Huck are portrayed as…
点名施事:
Twain portrays Tom and Huck as…
点名批评家:
Anderson argues that…
UNC 的 Odyssey 例句,施事缺失:
When her house was invaded, Penelope had to think of ways to delay her remarriage.
UNC 的改写:
After suitors invaded Penelope’s house, she had to think of ways to fend them off.
这些句子来自 UNC 的讲义,不是虚构的研讨课作业。若你在论题句里保留被动——"Penelope is not considered a hero"——UNC 的下一问才是对的:不被谁视为英雄?你、批评家,还是 Odyssey 的现代读者?主动语态会迫使你给出引文。
不要用被动语态掩盖责任
这是本页每一个来源都谴责的唯一用法。UNC 引用 Orwell 的 "swindles and perversions",然后是教师至今仍会批改的官僚配对。Chicago 问答把同一检验用到技术散文上:"Lies were told" 是应当拒绝的句子。后来的问答把一刀切禁止被动称为迷信——问题是缺失的施事,不是这种结构。
推诿,用各来源自己的话
UNC / Orwell 的靶子:
Mistakes were made.
UNC 的 Exxon 句:
The Exxon Company accepts that a few gallons might have been spilled.
CMOS Q&A, Usage and Grammar #198:
Although it’s good to avoid excessive use of the passive voice, and it’s especially important to avoid using it to hide who has done something (“Lies were told”), the best writing usually involves regular use of the passive, and it would be a mistake to root it out as a policy.
CMOS Q&A, Usage and Grammar #185:
The idea that the passive must be avoided is a superstition that language professionals long ago abandoned, although the prohibition remains popular.
CMOS Q&A #185 论混合语态:
in good writing a mix of active and passive is essential for variation and eloquence, as you will find in any classic of English literature. (Strunk and White use the passive throughout The Elements of Style after famously recommending against it.)
两则 Chicago 回答都注明:除非另有标明,它们依据第 17 版。第 18 版索引仍把定义放在 §5.122,把长 by 短语放在 §5.198;关于藏起施事的问答建议没有变。若论文的局限段落听起来像 "Mistakes were made," 就点出错误以及产生它的人或过程。
如何改写句子而不虚构施事
UNC 的转换方法是机械的:把施事放进主语位置。不要虚构一个你无法辩护的施事。若来源没有点名谁倾倒了污染物,保留被动比猜测 "factories dumped…" 更诚实。若施事就是你,APA 4.16 要 I 或 we,不要虚构的 "the team."
官方配对,对调
APA 辅导材料,被动 → 主动:
The scratch paper was given to the students by their teacher… → The teacher gave scratch paper to the students…
APA Style,被动 → 提问:
the cookies were eaten → Who ate them? If you know, write the children ate the cookies.
UNC,不用 we 的主动科学句:
A number of things are indicated by these results. → These results indicate a number of things.
Nature 形态:
The experiment was performed… → we performed the experiment...
悬垂修饰语(CMOS 18 §5.119 标出这一模式):
Template, not a source: Using qualitative methods, the study was conducted. → Using qualitative methods, we conducted the study.
语态修改核对表
若审查语态会让你停住、写不完一段,就不要在初稿里审计语态。UNC 说清晰通常出现在修改中。在打印稿或导出稿上跑这份清单,而不是对着闪烁的光标。
按顺序问这些问题
- 找出 be + 过去分词。两者都在,只说明你有一个候选,不是自动改写。
- 有没有行为?若动词只命名状态("the argument is sound"),停。那不是被动。
- 谁或什么执行该行为?他们在主语位置、在句末 by 之后,还是缺失?
- 公正的读者会问 who 吗?若会,而你知道,就写主动句。
- 你是否在藏起一项决定、一个错误或一位政治行动者?若是,改写。"Mistakes were made" 就是检验案例。
- 你是否在概述批评家或小说家?把姓氏放在动词前面。
- 教学大纲或期刊是否要求被动 Methods?遵守那条本地规则;不要把它输出到讨论。
- 在你独立撰写的 APA 论文里,你是否写了 we 或 "the researcher"?把那些改成 I。
- 语法检查器是否标出每一个 is?忽略那些不是 be + 分词的。
要做
- 对人的行为默认用主动(APA §4.13)。
- 独立 APA 论文用 I,与合著者用 we(§4.16)。
- 把被动留给设置、未知施事,以及宾语前置的强调。
- 概述历史学家、小说家和机构时点出他们的名字。
- 改写 Methods 之前先核期刊或实验评分表。
- 当句子的职责改变时,在同一篇论文里混合语态。
不要
- 把禁止被动当作迷信来执行(CMOS Q&A #185)。
- 用 "the author" 或 "the researcher" 来显得正式。
- 用编辑性 we 指一般人(APA §4.16)。
- 在你自己发现时写 "It was found that"。
- 为了让句子变成主动而虚构施事。
- 把语法检查器当成完整的被动检测器(UNC)。
相关指南
主动与被动语态:常见问题
- 被动语态是语法错误吗?
- 不是。UNC 的第一条迷思就是把它当成错误。APA 7 §4.13 与 Chicago 都允许它。失败在于滥用、读者需要却缺失的施事,或用它掩盖谁采取了行动。
- APA 第 7 版允许 I 和 we 吗?
- 允许,并且写自己的工作时更偏好它们。Publication Manual §4.16:若你是唯一作者,用 I;你与合著者用 we。不要用 "the researcher" 或 "the authors" 指自己。APA 第一人称页的 Alamo Colleges 转载(2026 年 5 月 29 日)保留官方配对:"I explored treatments for social anxiety," 而不是 "The author explored…"
- 科学实验报告应当用被动语态吗?
- 遵循眼前的评分表。Nature Portfolio 目前告诉期刊作者写 "we performed the experiment..."。UNC 仍见到希望方法部分用被动、好让学生消失的课程教师。那是不同的受众。不要把期刊的 we 抄进禁止第一人称的实验报告,也不要把实验报告的禁令抄进 Nature 稿件。
- 如何识别句子中的被动语态?
- UNC 的公式是 to be 的某种形式 + 过去分词。"The cookies were eaten" 是被动。"The cookies are stale" 不是:are 是状态。"I was hit by the dodgeball" 既是第一人称 又是 被动。by 短语是线索,不是证明。
- "The results show" 是被动语态吗?
- 不是。Show 是主动动词,results 是执行它的主语。UNC 更喜欢 "These results indicate…",而不是 "A number of things are indicated by these results." 你可以不用 I 或 we 写出主动的科学句子。
- 何时被动语态优于主动?
- 当承受者应居前时(APA 的实验设置;UNC 的 "One hundred votes are required"),当你确实不知道施事时(UNC 被倾倒的污染物),或当读者不需要施事时(UNC 的出生通告)。绝不要在逃避责任时使用。
- 《芝加哥格式手册》禁止被动吗?
- 不禁止。CMOS 18 在 §5.122 定义语态。用法问答(第 17 版,仍在线上)说,最好的写作会经常使用被动,把根除被动当作政策是错误的。问答 #185 称该禁令为迷信,并指出 Strunk and White 在整本 The Elements of Style 中都使用了被动。Chicago 攻击的是藏起施事的句子:"Lies were told."
- 可以在同一篇论文中混合主动与被动吗?
- 可以。APA 在同一份稿件中两者都用:判断用主动,设置用被动。CMOS Q&A #185 说混合是必要的。按职责混合——方法步骤对解释——不要在同一段落内随意混用。
- 为了显得客观,是否应该用 "the researcher" 替换 I?
- 在 APA Style 中不要。§4.16 说第三人称自我指称会造成歧义:读者分不清是你还是另一位学者做了这项工作。客观来自方法、证据与限度,而不是假装你不在房间里。UNC 的 1980 年代文化配对给出同样的改法:"we explored" 比 "the question…was explored." 更清楚。
- 语法检查器能可靠地找出被动语态吗?
- 不能。UNC 的第五条迷思:因为被动语态不是错误,检查器会漏掉很大一部分,也会标出普通的 be 动词。在草稿中搜索分词旁边的 was、were、been 和 being,然后逐句决定。