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 APA 7 §§4.13 与 4.16,以 Style Center 于 2026 年 4 月最后一次更新的措辞为准(Cal State Fullerton 2026 年 PATH 指南亦予转载),并遵循 CMOS 18 在 §5.122 的定义、如今引用该第 18 版段落的现行用法问答、Nature Portfolio 的写作核对表,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 20 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 的现行用法问答(第 18 版横幅,2026 年 10 月 10 日核验)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;最近一次更新于 2026 年 4 月)。该页的自动抓取常常被拦截;下面的措辞是 CSUF PATH 2026 转载,仍与官方 2026 年 4 月文本相符:
APA Style, “Active and passive voice”(2026 年 4 月;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 在 §5.122 定义该术语(该段需付费;主动语态也出现在第 18 版索引的 §§5.21、5.119、5.123、5.139 和 5.198)。公开的用法问答 #198 如今以 "Please see CMOS 5.122" 开篇,并以第 18 版横幅收尾:this answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted。这就是残留问题的修正。同一问答从前把编辑指向第 17 版 §5.118 的段落;不要再沿用那个旧节号。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(2026 年 4 月;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 给出一套不必靠语法检查器就能在草稿上运行的检验。Purdue OWL 是 CMOS 问答自己点名的入门讨论;它对简洁与冗长的对照有用,但不能替代 APA 或 Chicago。
UNC Writing Center, “Passive Voice”
form of “to be” + past participle = passive voice
Why was the road crossed by the chicken?
过马路的是鸡,但语法主语是 road。熟悉的主动形式把施事放在前面:why did the chicken cross the road?
Purdue OWL, “Active Versus Passive Voice”(CMOS 问答 #198 指向的页面)
Active voice is used for most non-scientific writing. Using active voice for the majority of your sentences makes your meaning clear for readers, and keeps the sentences from becoming too complicated or wordy. Even in scientific writing, too much use of passive voice can cloud the meaning of your sentences.
浪费一轮修改的迷思
UNC 开篇先列出被动语态 不是 什么。把这些当作修改过滤器,而不是体例手册里的民间传说。
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。你也可以写出第一人称被动句。
- "Never use the passive" 本身就是迷思。有些句子那样写更清楚。
- 语法检查器只抓住一小部分被动,因为它们并不是在标错误。
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
当某人做了读者需要跟踪的事时,伸手去用主动: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——换成被动,施事就会消失。把那条带日期的 COVID-19 Pirola 例子当作官方标本留下;不要换成后来的变异株名称。
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.
同一材料中的课堂对照:
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,是因为官员才是要点。"Data were reported on the spread of the COVID-19 Pirola variant" 会把站在数字背后的机构藏起来。对你自己的方法与讨论句用同一检验:若读者会公允地问 谁,就点名。
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,以及其他以承受者而非技术员为任务的句子。辅导材料中的土壤质量句是官方演算个案。UNC 再补三种被动并非躲避的情形:你要把宾语放在前面、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 自己对出生通告的解说就是决策规则:家人和朋友关心的是婴儿,不是 Dr. Susan Jones;医院交班报告或许会点名医生。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,而 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进来:学术散文不得说 I 或 we。APA Style 称之为迷思(页面最近一次更新于 2022 年 7 月),自 1974 年 Publication Manual 第二版起就这么说。§4.16(Concise Guide §2.16)要求你对自己的工作和自己的观点用第一人称,免得读者去猜 "the researcher" 是你还是你所引的别人。独立作者用 I。合著者用 we。不要用 we 来指 "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.
范围明确的 we:
As young adults, we often worry about what other people think of us.
现行 Style Center 文章“The ‘no first-person’ myth” 是第 7 版的重述。把较早的“Me, Me, Me” 文章(Chelsea Lee,2014 年 5 月 15 日)当作同一规则仍在使用的白话版留下,而不是残留的 APA 6 政策。两页说的是同一件事:若工作是你做的,就写 I 或 we。
APA Style, “The ‘no first-person’ myth,” 与 Chelsea Lee, “Me, Me, Me”(2014 年 5 月 15 日)
Many writers believe the “no first-person” myth, which is that writers cannot use first-person pronouns such as “I” or “we” in an APA Style paper.
However, APA Style has no such rule against using first-person pronouns and actually encourages their use to avoid ambiguity in attribution!
It represents a continuation of a long-standing APA Style guideline that began with the second edition of the manual, in 1974.
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”? 讲义把学生搅在一起的两个问题拆开:要不要写 I,以及要不要叙述个人经历。你可以做前者而不做后者。讲义自己的对照说明,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 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 改写:
Aristotle’s ethical arguments are logical and readily applicable to contemporary cases.
MLA Style Center 不那么强制,更偏实用。Michael Kandel(2017 年 7 月 25 日)告诉人文学作者,把 I 当作工具,既不是禁词,也不是必用词:
MLA Style Center,Michael Kandel, “Using ‘I’ in Academic Writing”(2017 年 7 月 25 日)
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。不要把第三方博客引用的 2010 年代 Science 体例单当作现行 Science 政策。现行 Science Information for authors 与 initial-manuscript 页(2026 年 10 月 10 日核验)并不提及语态。引用仍在印刷这条规则的期刊。
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(269(15):1966–1967, doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500150078030)与仍在线的 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:你的决定 | 主动第一人称 | §4.16 要的是 I 或 we,不是 "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 Portfolio 以及仍印刷该规则的期刊 | 主动,通常是 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,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" 把造成此事的体制藏起来。 |
| 建议与含义 | 主动 | 点名的施事可以对动词负责:机构应当、学校应当、我们应当。 |
历史与人文学:点名施事
在历史或文学论文里,缺失的施事往往就是整套论证。UNC 的美国史三句是失败模式:句子报告结果,却把原因、制度与决策者留在纸外。同一讲义的人类学例子点名了通过该法的政党。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 例子,施事缺失:
When her house was invaded, Penelope had to think of ways to delay her remarriage.
UNC 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 讲义,不是虚构的研讨课论文。若你在论题句里保留被动——"Penelope is not considered a hero"——UNC 的下一个问题才对:不被谁视为英雄?是你、批评家,还是 Odyssey 的当代读者?主动语态会逼出引用。
不要用被动语态来推卸责任
这是本页每一条来源都谴责的唯一用法。UNC 引用 George Orwell 的 "swindles and perversions",再给出教师仍会批注的官僚对照。Chicago 问答对技术散文用同一检验:"Lies were told" 是要拒绝的句子。随后一篇问答把对被动的一刀切禁令称为迷信——问题是缺失的施事,不是这种结构。
躲避,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 问答,Usage and Grammar #198(第 18 版横幅):
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 问答,Usage and Grammar #185(第 18 版横幅):
The idea that the passive must be avoided is a superstition that language professionals long ago abandoned, although the prohibition remains popular.
CMOS 问答 #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.)
Chicago 这两条回答现在都带着第 18 版横幅(2026 年 10 月 10 日核验)。问答 #198 指向 CMOS 18 §5.122,而不是残留的第 17 版 §5.118。关于藏起施事的建议并未改变。若你论文的局限段落听起来像 "Mistakes were made",就点名错误以及产生它的人或过程。
如何转换句子而不编造施事
UNC 的转换法是机械的:把施事放到主语位置。不要编造你无法辩护的施事。若来源没有点名是谁倾倒了污染物,保留被动比猜测着写 "factories dumped…" 更诚实。若施事 是你,APA 4.16 要的是 I 或 we,不是虚构的 "the team"。
官方对照,翻转过来
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 的形态:
The experiment was performed… → we performed the experiment...
悬垂修饰语(CMOS 18 §5.119 标出这一模式):
模板,不是出处:Using qualitative methods, the study was conducted. → Using qualitative methods, we conducted the study.
语态修改核对表
若在初稿里审核语态会让你写不完一段,就不要在初稿里审核。UNC 说,清晰通常出现在修改里。把这份清单用在打印或导出的草稿上,而不是对着闪烁的光标。
按这个顺序问
- 找出 be + 过去分词。两者都在,只是候选,不是自动改写。
- 有没有行为?若动词只是命名状态("the argument is sound"),停下。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?
- 公允的读者会问 谁 吗?若会,而你知道,就写主动句。
- 你是否在藏一项决定、一个错误或一个政治施事?若是,改写。"Mistakes were made" 就是试金石。
- 你是否在概述一位批评家或小说家?把姓氏放在动词前面。
- 课程大纲或期刊是否要求被动 Methods?服从那条本地规则;不要把它输出到讨论。
- 在你独自撰写的 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了每一个 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,与合著者一起用 we(§4.16)。
- 为设置、未知施事和宾语提前的强调保留被动。
- 概述历史学家、小说家和机构时点名。
- 改写 Methods 之前先核对照期刊或实验评分表。
- 当句子的任务改变时,在同一篇论文里混合语态。
不要做
- 不要把禁止被动当成迷信去执行(CMOS 问答 #185)。
- 不要用 "the author" 或 "the researcher" 来显得正式。
- 不要用编辑性 we 指一般人(APA §4.16)。
- 当你自己发现时,不要写 "It was found that"。
- 不要为了让句子变成主动而编造施事。
- 不要把残留的 Science 体例单当作现行期刊政策来引用。
- 不要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,或用它来藏起谁采取了行动。
- APA 第 7 版允许 I 和 we 吗?
- 允许,而且对你自己的工作更偏好它们。Publication Manual §4.16:若你是唯一作者就用 I,对你和合著者用 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)保留官方对照:"I explored treatments for social anxiety," 而不是 "The author explored…" 现行 Style Center 关于禁止第一人称迷思的文章,把同一规则追溯到 1974 年第二版。
- 科学实验报告应该用被动语态吗?
- 听从眼前的评分表。Nature Portfolio 目前告诉期刊作者写 "we performed the experiment..."。UNC 仍见到希望 Methods 用被动、好让学生消失的任课教师。那是不同的读者。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。
- 如何识别句子里的被动语态?
- 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" 是第一人称 并且 被动。by 短语是线索,不是证据。
- "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." 你可以不写 I 或 we 也写出主动的科学句子。
- 何时被动比主动更好?
- 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)。绝不要用它来躲避责备。
- Chicago Manual of Style 禁止被动吗?
- 不禁止。CMOS 18 在 §5.122 定义语态。现行用法问答 #198(第 18 版横幅,2026 年 10 月 10 日核验)如今指向该段,而不是残留的第 17 版 §5.118,并说最好的写作会经常使用被动。问答 #185 把禁令称为迷信,并指出 Strunk and White 在整本 The Elements of Style 里都用了被动。Chicago 攻击的是藏起施事的句子:"Lies were told."
- 我可以在同一篇论文里混合主动与被动吗?
- 可以。APA 在同一份稿件里两种都用:对自己的决定用主动,对设置用被动。CMOS 问答 #185 说混合必不可少。按任务混合——方法步骤对解释——而不是在同一段里随机混合。
- 为了听起来客观,该把 I 换成 "the researcher" 吗?
- 在 APA Style 里不要。§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,而不是假装你当时不在场。UNC 关于 1980 年代文化的对照给出同样的修正:"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。在草稿里搜索分词旁边的 was、were、been 和 being,然后逐句判断。