SPLIT INFINITIVE

A so-called split infinitive occurs when a modifying adverb is placed between the particle to and the base form of a verb, as in (31):

(31) …the initiative, which is expected to easily qualify for the November 1996 ballot (news_1995)

According to the traditional rule, splitting an infinitive in this way is considered incorrect. Revising Sentence (31) above to move the adverb after the base form of the verb would be considered preferable according to the traditional rule.

(32) …the initiative, which is expected to qualify easily for the November 1996 ballot (news_1995)

The proscription against the split infinitive has been called “a virtual icon of

prescriptivism” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2013, p. 4). The resistance to splitting infinitives began in the early to mid-nineteenth century (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2013) as a response to the idea that infinitives could not be split in Latin and should therefore not be split in English.

5.4.1 Review of Advice from Usage Guides

There are two general approaches to arguing against the SPLIT INFINITIVE. The first is to point out that Latin infinitive verbs were composed of one word while English infinitive verbs are composed of two (to + the base form of the verb). Because English infinitives are made up of two words, there is no reason that a modifying adverb could not be used between the two words.

The other approach is more linguistically informed. It recognizes that the infinitive form of a verb in English is actually a single word (the base form of the verb) and that it is

often accompanied by the particle to. As the argument goes, because the infinitive in English is actually one word, inserting a modifying adverb between the to and the infinitive is not actually splitting anything. So how could it be wrong?

Regardless of the approach, most of the authors of the usage guides included in this study recognize the illegitimacy of this prescription. Fogarty (2008), whose advice is often on the extreme prescriptive end of the scale takes the opposite approach on this issue, saying

“I consider it my calling to dispel the myth that it’s against the rules to split infinitives. It’s fine to split infinitives, and sometimes, I split them when I don’t have to just to maliciously make a point” (p. 55). Strunk and White (2009) and Butterfield (2015) were the most prescriptive in their discussions of the rule; however, neither took a completely prescriptive approach. Butterfield says that

the ban on the split infinitive…has sufficient weight of opinion against it to

recommend avoidance when possible, and especially when it is stylistically awkward.

But it is neither a major error nor a grammatical blunder, and it is acceptable and at times necessary when considerations of rhythm and clarity call for it. (p. 773) In total, the split infinitive had the second-lowest prescriptivism index of all of the usage problems, with a rating of 1.95. This indicates that it is widely seen among usage experts as a rule that is not worth following. Yet, because it has become such an icon as Tieken-Boon van Ostade described it, it continues to take up space in US handbooks on usage. None of the usage guides included in this study recommend that this is a rule that should always be followed.

5.4.2 Research Questions and Method of Extracting Data from the Corpora

To study this usage problem in personal blog writing and news writing, I investigated the following research questions:

RQ1split Inf. What proportion of instances of infinitives accompanied by modifying adverbs are split vs. unsplit (i.e., the adverb is placed immediately before or after the infinitive verb phrase) in formal and informal registers of writing?

RQ2split Inf. To what extent do the proportions between these two registers differ?

In order to extract examples of infinitive verb phrases modified by adverbs, I

compiled the three search patterns listed in Table 5.7. Simply using the general adverb tag in the CLAWS7 tagset (_RR) would return many unsplit infinitives in which the split alternation would not be possible, as in to see how and to learn more (cf. *to how see and *to more learn). Therefore, the patterns I developed identify as adverbs any word endings in -ly in addition to the adverbs better, just, still, also, even, further, ever, always, never, and not. I selected these 10 adverbs because they commonly appear in split infinitives in all registers of COCA (Davies 2008).

I then coded the randomly selected instances as outlined in Section 4.2.3.3 to determine whether each instance could reasonably be considered to constitute a split or unsplit infinitive. Because of the way I built my search patterns, false positives like those in (33) and (34) were relatively frequent, accounting for more than a quarter (26%) of the total instances I analyzed.

Table 5.7 Search terms used to extract data from both corpora

Patterns Regular Expressions Examples

Split infinitive r"\bto_\w+[@%]?

(?:\w+ly|better|just|still|also|even|furt her|ever|always|never|not)_\w+[@%]?

\w+_VVI[@%]?"

*It is impossible to entirely separate the gun-ownership from concerns of

…so I took this as an opportunity to procrastinate further”

(33) It seems everyone wants me to like Billy Collins’ poetry (banjo52_blogspot_00023)

(34) …the logic of computing can assist our human thought processes as we try to manage daily problems. (thebookshopper_typepad_00005)

After identifying 250 instances of infinitives from both registers, I calculated the proportion of split versus unsplit infinitives in each register.

5.4.3 Results of Corpus Analysis

The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 5.10. These results demonstrate that split infinitives occur often in both registers of writing, though they occur at a higher proportion in personal blog writing.

Figure 5.10 Proportion of split and unsplit infinitives in blog and news writing. Split infinitives are marked as incorrect; unsplit infinitives are marked as correct.

5.4.4 Summary of Survey Results

To understand the attitudes related to this usage rule, I asked survey participants whether the following sentence was acceptable or unacceptable, and if acceptable, in which contexts:

(35) *She refused to even think about it.

This sentence flouts the traditional by splitting the verb phrase to think with the adverb even.

According to the prescriptive rule, this sentence would be correctly revised to say “She refused even to think about it.”

Overall, as has been observed in the previous analyses, journalists viewed this usage problem more leniently than bloggers did, though both groups overwhelmingly accepted the

51.60%

69.60%

48.40%

30.40%

0%

50%

100%

blogs news

correct incorrect

sample sentence as acceptable in at least informal contexts. In fact, 100% of the journalists found the sentence acceptable. Only 12.86% (n = 9) bloggers found the sentence

unacceptable; none of the journalists did. One possible reason for this finding could be that journalists are echoing the lenient stance the AP Stylebook gives on this usage problem: “In many cases, splitting the infinitive or compound forms of a verb is necessary to convey meaning and make a sentence easy to read. Such constructions are acceptable” (verbs, n.d.).

Nearly all of the journalists who responded to the survey suggested they were familiar with the AP Stylebook. Proportionally much fewer bloggers did, though many bloggers did

indicate being familiar with a range of other style guides. Investigating the stance taken by all of the style guides mentioned in the survey was outside the scope of this study, though future research could study the level of prescriptivism in all of those guides to help explain why bloggers might also take very lenient views on the SPLIT INFINITIVE usage problem.

The rule against the split infinitive is widely rejected among usage experts as noted above, and the results from my survey suggest that the same is true for bloggers and journalists. One blogger stated that they are “not hung up on split infinitives, which is the only supposed error I see here.” Another comment from a journalist acknowledged the effect that pronouncements from the AP Stylebook has in issues related to linguistic prescriptivism:

“I’m assuming the split infinitive is at issue here, but if AP’s fine with it, I am too.”

Interestingly, the fact that journalists seem to be more permissive of splitting infinitives, as shown in Figure 5.11, is not reflected in the usage patterns among news writers, as shown in Figure 5.10. The rule is followed more often in news writing than in blog writing even though a higher percentage of the bloggers who responded to my survey saw the rule as more important to follow than the journalists did.

Figure 5.11 Proportion of bloggers and journalists who found the SPLIT INFINITIVE

unacceptable, acceptable only in informal contexts, or acceptable in formal contexts