While I find it surprising, the choice to split or not does sometimes elicit controversy. If you don’t believe me, you can read about a recent tussle between a journalist at The Economist and a linguist. Grammar Girl might be right when she advises “it takes boldness to split an infinitive.” But do a journalist and a linguist accurately represent workplace readers? (I’ve urged you to attend only to usage that matters as established by research rather than to any individual’s pet peeves. I’ve listed the most relevant studies again at the end of this post.)
Of the six major research studies on writing mechanics since 1981, split infinitives were included in exactly zero of them. In the most recent study (“Mistakes are a fact of life: A national comparative study” by Lunsford & Lunsford), split infinitives were considered but purposefully excluded because they were so rare in the writing of freshmen composition students. In the most relevant study for our purposes (“Language in Change: Academics’ and Executives’ Perceptions of Usage Errors” by Leonard & Gilsdorf), split infinitives were not tested because they were not considered one of the 45 most potentially distracting language choices.
We might assume that split infinitives would most often be used in spoken language, due to its more informal and less rigid nature and Escudero-Perales [sic] did indeed find that some examples, such as to just + verb’, to really + verb and to actually + verb are much more common in spoken registers. On the other hand, he also found that other examples, such as to effectively + verb and to better + verb, showed strong associations with written academic registers. In fact, the split infinitive that was used with most frequency in the COCA [Corpus of American English] was to better understand and it was mainly used in the written academic register, which we would probably perceive as the most rigid with regards to language rules. However, it seems that it is this particular register which has given rise to its own split infinitive forms, especially those made with to better and to effectively.
So the evidence I have says stop thinking about split infinitives. There are so many other things to learn about writing successfully in the workplace!
For those of you who want to see the evidence for yourself, here are the major studies establishing the degree of negative attention generated by breaking various prescriptive rules:
- Hairston. (1981). Not All Errors Are Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in the Professions Respond to Lapses in Usage. College English, 43, 794-806.
- Connors & Lunsford. (1988). Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395-409.
- Leonard & Gilsdorf. (1990). Language in Change: Academics’ and Executives’ Perceptions of Usage Errors. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 137-158.
- Seshadri & Theye. (2000). Professionals and Professors: Substance or Style? Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 9-23.
- Beason. (2001). Ethos and Error: How Business People React to Errors. College Composition and Communication, 53, 33-64.
- Lunsford & Lunsford. (2008). Mistakes Are a Fact of Life: A National Comparative Study.College Composition and Communication, 59, 781-806.
- Economist still chicken: botches sentence rather than split infinitive (languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu)
- Purism, the Economist and split infinitives (lavengro.typepad.com)
- More about split infinitives (lavengro.typepad.com)
- 4 Changes to English So Subtle We Hardly Notice They’re Happening (mentalfloss.com)