The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.

doi:10.1515/zaa-2005-0209

Cited by 808 publications

(328 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

310

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted by Jesperson (1933, p. 331), the split infinitive is a misnomer "…for the preposition to no more belongs to the infinitive as a necessary part of it, than the definite article belongs to the substantive, and no one would think of calling the good man a split substantive". In a similar vein, according to Huddleston and Pullum (2002, pp. 1183-1184, to serves as an infinitive-phrase marker but is not syntactically in the construction with the verb base.…”

Section: Reasons To Allow the Split Infinitivementioning

confidence: 96%

“…The split infinitive refers to the structure in which a word or phrase, such as an adverb, is positioned between the infinitive marker to and the verb in the base form (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002). While such a construction has been so far labeled as an ungrammatical usage by prescriptive grammarians, strongly believing that conventional language rules should be strictly followed, modern descriptive grammarians, focusing on language as it is actually used, accept the split infinitive as a well-formed structure (Mitrasca, 2009).…”

Section: The Split Infinitive: Structure and Originmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, the formation of English grammar rules based on Latin is probably inappropriate, resulting in a false analogy. As Crystal (1985) and Huddleston and Pullum (2002) remarked, an English infinitive phrase, e.g. to love, is translated into only one word amare in Latin.…”

Section: Reasons To Allow the Split Infinitivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The English split infinitive: A comparative study of learner corpora

Phoocharoensil¹

2012

IJRSLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The split infinitive in English has been controversial for over a century. Whilst a prescriptive grammar rule forbids infinitive splitting, it seems that modern grammar academics, as well as users, accept and allow for its occurrence. The approval of split-infinitive structure has also been clearly substantiated by plenty of convincing linguistic evidence: real data from native-speaker corpora confirms its existence in different varieties of English. The present study, using the data collected from Thai Learner English Corpus (TLEC), shows that professional English learners evidently produce a greater number of split infinitives than intermediate learners, whose proficiency level is lower. According to a comparative study of the two learner corpora, the higher the proficiency level of the learner, the greater of the production of the split infinitives, and low-proficiency learners seem to use split infinitives in a more specific context.

show abstract

Section: Reasons To Allow the Split Infinitivementioning

confidence: 96%

Section: The Split Infinitive: Structure and Originmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The English split infinitive: A comparative study of learner corpora

Phoocharoensil¹

2012

IJRSLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cette attitude est celle adoptée dans tous les travaux d'annotation discursive, dont le PDTB dont nous nous inspirons pour le FDTB. Signalons à ce propos que le PDTB a annoté les cent connecteurs dits les plus fréquents de l'anglais mais pas la préposition to suivie d'une infinitive, qui peut être considérée comme l'équivalent de pour suivie d'une infinitive et qui pose aussi des problèmes fort délicats pour déterminer si l'on est en présence d'un connecteur ou non (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, pages 1222-1225). …”

Section: Bilanunclassified

“…Ce modifieur nominal, sémantiquement équivalent à conçu/prévu/fait pourVinf, (10b), est qualifié de « relative sans mot QU » en adaptant le terme de (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002) 3 .…”

Section: Pour Introduit Une "Relative Sans Mot Qu"unclassified