Journal of Teaching and Education,
CD-ROM. ISSN: 2165-6266 :: 1(3):459–464 (2012)
c 2012 by UniversityPublications.net
Copyright A PEDAGOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE ENGLISH SPLIT
INFINITIVE: A VIEW FROM LANGUAGE CORPORA
Supakorn Phoocharoensil
Thammasat University
The split infinitive in English has been under debate for more than a century. A number of reasons are
provided for its prohibition as the split construction is often regarded as erroneous, non-standard, or
deviant from the traditional prescriptive norm of English grammar. Nonetheless, evidence from
language corpora demonstrate that many native English speakers themselves have widely used it these
days, not considering the structure as such grammatically incorrect. It is clearly seen that the split
infinitive often enables English users to enormously appeal to readers’ attention, so does it help
promote clarity of messages. As regards pedagogical aspects, it may be useful if the split infinitive is
included in EFL grammar lessons on the condition that it is introduced through authentic materials after
the normal, unmarked structure of infinitive has been introduced.
Keywords : English split infinitive, Learners’ proficiency, Learner corpora, Corpus-based data.
Introduction
The controversy over the English split infinitive has existed for over a century. While some educated
English-speaking people in strict compliance with prescriptive grammar rules traditionally object to
infinitive splitting, there appear a great number of native speakers who approve of such a grammatical
construction (Carter & McCarthy, 2006; Crystal, 2003). That is, they often allow an item, e.g. an adverb,
to be placed between the infinitive marker to and the verb in the base form, as in to flatly refuse (Leech,
Deuchar, & Hoogenraad, 2006, p. 184). This research paper is aimed at presenting two distinct views of
English split infinitives, covering existing reasons to forbid and permit such a structure. More
importantly, some pedagogical implications as to whether split infinitives should be taught will also be
discussed.
Literature Review
What is the English Split Infinitive?
The split infinitive in English is defined as the structure in which a word or phrase, such as an adverb,
occurs between the infinitive marker to and the verb in the base form (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002). The
intervening element, known as a splitter, is generally a single adverb, e.g. in (1), a complex adverbial, e.g.
as in (2), or a negator, e.g. not in (3).
459
460
Supakorn Phoocharoensil
(1) …a foreign minister with that of some of the men we send abroad nowadays, to fully appreciate
the value of general information, and a true sense of personal and… .
(Mikulova, 2011, p. 15)
(2) …the states he’s won, the red states, is they’re not likely to all of a sudden turn blue in
November… .
Mikulova, 2011, p. 31)
(3) And when – inevitably – you do capsize, you soon learn how to not make the same mistakes
again.
(Mikulova , 2011, p. 28)
The occurrence of split infinitives probably originated in the 13th century, i.e. in Middle English, and
its use diminished throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. The existence of split infinitives seemed to have
been revived by the end of the 18th century. The usage of this structure, although usually labeled as
erroneous by pedantic syntacticians, has continuously risen from the 1940s on (Mikulova, 2011). The
origin of the split infinitive in English confirms that it is by no means unnatural in English, as
prescriptivists argued, and not a modern phenomenon (Crystal, 2003).
The Controversial Split Infinitive
It is obviously seen that prescriptive grammarians, who formulate and strictly follow conventional rules
of language, seriously view the split infinitive as forbidden. For these purists, a separation of the infinitive
marker and the following verb violates the grammar tradition (Leech et al., 2006). A lot of reasons, many
of which are unconvincing, are provided in support of the no-splitting rule. Firstly, prescriptivists strongly
believe that “their languages need regulating, tidying up, or protecting against change” (Swan, 2005, p.
66). For this reason, they devise rules to govern the grammar usage. The rule against infinitive splitting
seems to arise as a result of the view that the infinitive is a fixed linguistic unit. Thus, there should not be
any item inserted between to the verb (Mitrasca, 2009). Secondly, the split infinitive prohibition emanated
from an analogy with Latin grammar. “The prestige of Latin was so enormous that English constructions
that differed from the Latin model were disparaged” (Leech et al., 2006, p. 186). This is why English
prescriptive grammarians base their rules on Latin. In particular, since split infinitives are never existent
in Latin, the rule against infinitive splitting has been constituted in accordance with Latin grammar
(Bailey, 2006). Another reason lies in the fact that certain English users, having been taught to conform to
the custom of infinitive splitting proscription, think that following such a rule is a sign of erudition
(Bailey, 2006).
In contrast to the above reasons provided to ban the use of split infinitives, a number of arguments
against the prescriptive rule are also available. According to Trask (2007, p. 230), an English infinitive
should not be treated as an inseparable linguistic unit. In fact, a sequence like to get is not an infinitive,
nor is it even a grammatical unit. He is of the opinion that only get is the true infinitive, whereas to is just
a linking particle. Therefore, to and get do not seem to form a fixed unit, which leads to a possibility for
an item, such as an adverb, to occur between the particle to and the verb.
With respect to Latin grammar as the origin of the do not split infinitives rule in English, Crystal
(1985) maintained that such an analogy sounds illegitimate and unsuitable. That is, the grammars of both
languages are incomparable in terms of infinitive structure. For example, while the English infinitive
phrase to love consists of two components, i.e. to and the verb in the base form, the Latin equivalent is
simply a single word amare, in which no splitter can occur. That is why split infinitives do not exist in
Latin. However, the application of the non-existence of split infinitives in Latin to English grammar is
clearly unfair. As Bryson (1990, p. 128) notes, “Making English grammar conform to Latin rules is like
asking people to play baseball using the rules of football. It is patent absurdity”.
A Pedagogical Perspective on the English Split Infinitive: A View from Language Corpora
461
Another reason supporting infinitive splitting lies in analogies with other verb phrases. It is
absolutely grammatically correct for an adverb to be positioned between an auxiliary and a main verb, as
in (4), where the adverb actually is inserted between did not and talk. In a similar vein, there should also
be acceptable for an adverb to be placed in the position between to and the verb (Close, 1987).
(4) We did not actually talk to him.
(Mitrasca, 2009, p. 105)
Moreover, the split infinitive may be effective when the user’s purpose is to draw attention from
audience. In this way, the split infinitive sometimes enhances the rhythm of English. From the very
famous blurb from Star Trek television episodes and films To boldly go where no man has gone before,
the use of split infinitive here follows the natural rhythm of English (Crystal, 2003, p. 195), and is “often
the most acceptable rhythmical alternative in speech” (Crystal, 2001, p. 162).
It is also found that the split infinitive can effectively reduce ambiguity in English (Calle-Martin and
Miranda-Garcia, 2009: 361). According to Oxford online dictionaries, “avoiding a split infinitive can
sound clumsy. It can also change the emphasis of what’s being said”. For instance, the differences in the
position of the adverb really in (5) and (6) shown below leads to different meaning focuses. While (5)
conveys the meaning ‘it is important that you watch him’, (6) is understood as ‘you have to watch him
very closely’. If a speaker says (5), strictly conforming to the no-infinitive-splitting rule, even though the
intended meaning is that of (6), it is clearly seen that the real meaning is not being expressed. To
conclude, the application of split infinitive in (6) helps make the speaker’s intention clearer.
(5) You really have to watch him.
(6) You have to really watch him.
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/grammartipsplitinfinitive)
What is stated in the preceding paragraph accords with Gowers (1954)’s disapproving attitude
towards the avoidance of infinitive splitting, which hampers clear writing and promotes ambiguity “by
inducing writers to place adverbs in unnatural and even misleading position” (Gowers 1954, as cited in
Crystal 2003: 195). It is, therefore, in certain contexts, necessary for an infinitive to be split in order to
preserve intended meaning (Stageberg and Oaks 2000). According to Swales and Feak (2004: 23), even
though split infinitives are not very common in academic writing, “they are sometimes used, particularly
in order to avoid awkwardness or ambiguity”.
Evidence from Native Speaker and Learner English
There have been a number of research studies exploring the use of split infinitives in authentic English,
i.e. the English of native speakers. Most of these recent studies have relied on language corpora as a large
systematic collection of naturally occurring texts that are stored electronically (Reppen, 2010, p. 2). Many
corpus-based works have revealed an existence of the split infinitives in English speakers’ language.
Albakry (2005) investigated English features found in New York Times and USA Today, the latter of
which contains more tokens of split infinitives (10%), compare to 6 % in the former corpus. The study
also shows that the adverb is the most common item used as a splitter. In particular, the most frequent
adverbs as splitters are adverbs of manner, e.g. significantly, and the motivation for the split-infinitive use
concerns a communicative need for emphasis.
Consistent with Albakry (2005), Carter and McCarthy (2006), based on British English, American
English and other varieties of English in the Cambridge International Corpus (CIC), indicate split
infinitives as a common construction in spoken English which often passes unnoticed although “they are
often thought inappropriate in writing” (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 596).
Moreover, Mitrasca’s study (2009), also based on corpus-informed data, was aimed at exploring the
frequency of split infinitives in British and American English. The British National Corpus (BNC) was
462
Supakorn Phoocharoensil
searched for information on split infinitives in British English, whilst The Corpus of Contemporary
American English (CCAE) and The Brown Academic List represented the American counterpart,
supplemented by the powerful search engine Google. The research exhibits a clear difference between
British and American usages of split infinitives: Americans evidently produced split infinitives
approximately three to four times more often than the British. Regarding the splitters used in both
varieties, the Americans apparently employed double adverbs as splitters, e.g. at least, not only, kind of,
sort of, etc., whereas the British hardly did so. Additionally, the negative adverb never and the negator not
occur more frequently in American English than British English. The study also reported on compoundadverb splitters in American English. The adverb more, as shown in this study, appears to be the most
common, as in to more fully understand, to more accurately reflect, to more closely match, etc. (Mitrasca,
2009, p. 119). The data from Google, furthermore, also confirms the occurrence of split infinitives in
native speakers’ language, meanwhile it evidently implies the obsolescence of the rule banning split
infinitives.
Mikulova (2011), in an examination of the split infinitive in the British National Corpus (BNC) and
the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), discovered that the split infinitive occurs more
frequently in the BNC than the COCA, corroborating Mitrasca (2009). Precisely, the BNC data pinpoints
a preponderance of split infinitives in the spoken English over those in the written counterpart. In
contrast, as the COCA data demonstrates, there exists a nearly equal distribution in spoken and written
American English. As the study focused on the splitters used in both genres, the results indicate that the
most common splitters are adverbials, lending support to Albakry (2005). To be more specific, the top-ten
common adverb splitters in the BNC are actually, just, really, even, further, fully, completely, always,
finally, and better respectively. The most frequent in COCA are namely just, really, actually, better, even,
further, fully, kind of, always, and simply respectively. Aside from the adverb splitter, the negator not as a
splitter is also present in both corpora, with more frequency in American than British English. This
negative splitter occurs slightly more frequently in written English in the two explored corpora.
In addition to the evidence of split infinitives in native English, EFL learners are also found to use
this structure in their writing. Phoocharoensil (2012) explored the split infinitives in Thai Learner English
Corpus (TLEC), with an emphasis on professional and intermediate learners’ English. Specifically, the
corpus of intermediate learner English comprises writings of first-year university students from various
faculties of two prestigious universities in Thailand, while that of the professional user corpus was
compiled from writings of Thai journalists published in two well-known English newspapers in Thailand,
i.e. The Nation and Bangkok Post. The study shows that the professional EFL users, whose proficiency
was higher, produce far more split infinitives (100 tokens) than do the intermediate EFL learners (28
tokens). The most common adverb splitter used by the professional group was better (32 tokens), whereas
further (6 tokens) was the most frequent in the corpus of the intermediate group. It has been found that the
professional users seem to employ the splitter further in various contexts and genres. On the other hand,
this adverb splitter occurs in a limited context, i.e. education. Surprisingly, no token of better can be seen
in the corpus of intermediate learners although this appears to be the most common in the highproficiency profession group. In addition to the adverb splitters, this research study also indicates a
similar number of not as a splitter in the professional group (15 tokens) and the intermediate learner group
(13 tokens).
The subsequent section deals with the English split infinitive and some pedagogical implications
which should be beneficial to EFL teachers and learners.
A Pedagogical Perspective Vis-à-Vis the English Split Infinitive
In connection with the previous works cited above, it seems that the split infinitive is obviously prevalent
in both native speakers’ and learners’ English. Even though there are strong arguments against this
infinitive structure, which prescriptive grammarians usually consider deviant and unacceptable, plenty of
scholarly English-speaking people currently allow it (Crystal, 2001, 2003; Leech et al., 2006). In reality,
A Pedagogical Perspective on the English Split Infinitive: A View from Language Corpora
463
no logical reason is available in order to prohibit such infinitive use. Furthermore, in certain contexts
where its occurrence considerably fascinates readers, e.g. the Star Trek introductory phrase To boldly go
where no man has gone before, an avoidance of the split infinitive will definitely result in flavor loss
(Crystal, 2003).
Now that there is nothing grammatically wrong with splitting infinitives in modern English, it may
be useful if EFL teachers introduce the split infinitive in infinitive lessons. Normal infinitive
constructions should be instructed first. When teachers are certain that the learners understand the usage
of English infinitives in general, they may present some examples of split infinitives from authentic
materials, such as newspapers, magazines, Internet-based media, etc. Students are supposed to take some
opportunity to discuss in class why they think such an infinitive use is crucial or plays a significant role in
that context. Teachers can then make explicit to students that split infinitives actually exist in real English
and there is no reason to criticize them. Moreover, teachers may also provide them with clear examples of
split infinitives used for disambiguation, emphasizing to them how different positions of an adverb right
before or after to possibly cause different intended meanings (Eastwood, 2005; Gowers, 1954). Students’
awareness of the split infinitive in catching readers’ or listeners’ attention, such as in advertisements,
should also be raised. Its avoidance in such a particular context could reduce or even ruin the power of the
message.
EFL teachers, nevertheless, also have to make it a point that even though split infinitives seem to be
almost omnipresent in different genres of English, there are still those who strongly disagree with this
grammatical structure. According to Mitrasca (2009), even some universities in English-speaking
countries, e.g. Canada, has a rule that their students strictly conform to the prescriptive do not split
infinitives rule in writing theses and dissertations. What is more, if learners enjoy using split infinitives
everywhere, they can run a risk of unconsciously annoying audience who believe in the tradition of split
infinitive proscription. For instance, if they produce split infinitives in a letter of application and
unfortunately a personnel manager who detests the split infinitive happens to read this, chances are they
could fail just because of the reader’s bias. This is why EFL teachers, when introducing the use of split
infinitives, are expected to warn their students to limit split infinitive use to some contexts. Put simply,
learners should use this construction only when its absence can cause vagueness or ambiguity or when
they write an informal message to captivate audience, as in the Star Trek blurb. As mentioned by Swales
& Feak (2004, p. 23), it is really important for English learners to observe readers’ preference for splitting
or not splitting, and it is apparently safe to follow the convention, i.e. refraining from infinitive splitting,
in academic writing.
References
1.
Albakry, M.A. 2005. Style in American newspaper language: Use and usage. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
2.
Bailey, R. 2006. “Talking about words. Split infinitives”. In: Michigan Today News-e. Retrieved on July 17,
2011 from http://www.umich.edu/NewsE/06_06/words.html
3.
Bryson, B. 1990. Mother tongue. London: Penguin Books.
4.
Calle-Martin, J. and Miranda-Garcia, A. 2009. “On the use of split infinitives in English”. In: Renouf and
Kehoe A. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: Refinements and reassessments. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi. 347364.
5.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Close, R. A. 1987. “Notes on the split infinitive”. Journal of English Linguistics 20. 217–229.
7.
Crystal, D. 1985. “A case of the split infinitives”. English Today 3. 16–17.
8.
Crystal, D. 2001. A dictionary of language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
464
9.
Supakorn Phoocharoensil
Crystal, D. 2003. The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
10. Eastwood, J. 2005. Oxford learner’s grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Gowers, E. 1954. The complete plain words. London: HMSO.
12. Huddleston, R. D. and Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
13. Leech, G., Deuchar, M. and Hoogenraad, R. 2006. English grammar for today. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Mikulova, H. 2011. Split infinitive –Corpus analysis. Thesis, Univerzita Palackehov Olomouci.
15. Mitrasca, M. 2009. “The split infinitive in electronic corpora: Should there be a rule?” Concordia Working
Papers in Applied Linguistics 2. 99–131.
16. Phoocharoensil, S. (2012). The Split infinitive taboo: A comparative study of learner corpora. Unpublished
document.
17. Reppen, R. 2010. Using corpora in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Stageberg, N. C. and Oaks, D. D. 2000. An introductory English grammar. Fort Worth: Harcourt College
Publishers.
19. Swales, J. M. and Feak, C. B. 2004. Academic writing for graduate students. Michigan: The University of
Michigan Press.
20. Swan, M. 2005. Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Trask, R. L. 2007. Language and linguistics. The key concepts. Abingdon: Routledge.
http://ling.arts.chula.ac.th/TLE/
http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/grammartipsplitinfinitive