The Use of Passivization in Selected American Editorials about Gaza Crisis

Abstract

This study investigates the syntactic and semantic functions of passivization in American newspaper editorials covering the Gaza Crisis. Specifically, it examines how passive constructions are employed within political discourse to manipulate sentence structure and influence reader perception. The research is guided by two central questions: What motivates the use of passivization in political discourse? and What are the syntactic and semantic implications of employing passive voice in this context?

To address these questions, the study adopts the grammatical framework proposed by Quirk et al. (1985) as the analytical model. A qualitative analysis is conducted on a corpus of six editorials, randomly selected from two prominent American newspapers. The selection aims to ensure representativeness and neutrality in the sampling process.

Findings reveal that passivization serves multiple discourse functions in political texts. Syntactically, it allows for the restructuring of sentences in alignment with the Given-New principle, foregrounding known information and deferring new or sensitive content. Semantically, passive constructions are used to emphasize particular elements of the sentence, enhance the objectivity of the text, and eliminate agent responsibility in certain contexts. Additionally, passivization is found to support textual cohesion by avoiding redundancy and creating a more formal, impersonal tone.

The study concludes that passivization in political editorials is a deliberate rhetorical strategy, employed not only to manage syntactic structure but also to subtly shape meaning and influence audience interpretation.