# so that [function / meaning]



## JungKim

In CGEL*:


> [38] i _He loves her passionately, so that he is even willing to give up his job for her._
> ii _He loves her so passionately that he is even willing to give up his job for her. _
> 
> In [38i] _so _is head of a PP functioning as adjunct of result.
> In [38ii] _so_ is an adverb of degree modifying passionately; it licenses the content clause following passionately, which expresses the result of his loving her to the degree he does.


Traditional grammars do not analyze  'so' and 'that' in [38i] individually, but lump 'so that' together as a single unit such as 'a complex subordinating conjunction' or some such. Since I'm not a big fan of lumping anything together, I turned to CGEL. But I find it hard to wrap my head around classifying 'so' in [38i] as a preposition.

As far as I can tell, 'so' in [38i] refers back to the whole clause He loves her passionately. Am I right?
If so, I think it's more like a pro-form than a preposition.

Can someone who's familiar with CGEL teach me why it should be a preposition, as opposed to a pro-form?
_
*Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 734). _


----------



## dojibear

In sentent [38i], "so" is a conjunction. According to the WordReference dictionary, "so" as a conjunction is optionally followed by "that".

"So" does not mean the whole preceding clause, like a pronoun would, so it isn't a "pro-form". And it isn't a preposition.


----------



## JungKim

I can see that most dictionaries classify 'so' in [38i] as a conjunction. Thanks for letting me know that.
If 'so' is a conjunction in its own right, why do you think you can have an additional conjunction 'that'?


----------



## Englishmypassion

JungKim said:


> If 'so' is a conjunction in its own right, why do you think you can have an additional conjunction 'that'?



Whether or not we can have a conjunction after another conjunction in English is determined by how the language has been and is used by people, not by grammars.


----------



## dojibear

JungKim said:


> If 'so' is a conjunction in its own right, why do you think you can have an additional conjunction 'that'?



It is a "why" question, so the correct answer begins "In the ancient past, in the dim recesses of time, there was a Viking village in Cornwall." If I was a linguist, I would probably know a story like that, explaining how "so that" came to be used in English.

If we stick to modern times, there is no "why". "So" is used as a conjunction. "So that" is used as a conjunction. Grammars are just attempts to create a set of logical rules to explain something illogical: a language.

Personally, I add "that" (after "so" and in other places) when it makes the sentence meaning clearer or less ambiguous. After all, "so" has dozens of meanings. Often it isn't clear that it's a conjunction. But "so that" is a conjunction.


----------



## JungKim

Englishmypassion said:


> Whether or not we can have a conjunction after another conjunction in English is determined by how the language has been and is used by people, not by grammars.


Really? As soon as you introduce grammatical terms like 'conjunction' or 'preposition', isn't it grammars -- as opposed to how the language is used by people -- that determine whether or not we can have one conjunction after another? I mean, those who use the language don't even have to know what a conjunction is.



dojibear said:


> If we stick to modern times, there is no "why". "So" is used as a conjunction. "So that" is used as a conjunction. Grammars are just attempts to create a set of logical rules to explain something illogical: a language.


I agree. Grammars are all about being logical, no matter how illogical the language described _seems_. (Although I don't necessarily agree that the language itself is indeed illogical.) That said, I don't find it terribly logical to call 'so that' -- as well as 'so' and 'that' individually -- a conjunction in the same sentence, as in the OP.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> Can someone who's familiar with CGEL teach me why it should be a preposition, as opposed to a pro-form?


Could you quote what CGEL says?

I have always taken the view I was taught at school: that 'so' is an adverb, meaning 'in such a way', or 'to such an extent'.

'So that', in a result clause, means, for example,  'in such a way that': the 'that' clause specifies the particular way in which the result develops.

I was also taught that using 'so' on its own in place of 'so that' was a slang usage, not acceptable in correct written English. I must admit that in this forum I have sometimes broken that rule.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> Could you quote what CGEL says?


It's in the OP: 


> In [38i] _so _is head of a PP functioning as adjunct of result.



Where PP means 'prepositional phrase'. 
What CGEL is saying is basically that 'so' in 'so that' as in [38i] is a preposition that takes a that-clause as a complement. In CGEL, prepositions can take a content clause as a complement.


----------



## Andygc

Isn't this just another example of CEGL ploughing its own furrow? There have been many occasions in this forum when CEGL quotations have described grammar differently from other sources. I am not a grammarian, but I cannot understand "so" in such sentences any other way than as wandle says. The authors of CEGL see the language differently. Presumably somewhere in the book they explain their criteria for deciding what should be called a 'preposition'. Comparing their criteria with those used in other grammars might answer your question in the OP.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> I have always taken the view I was taught at school: that 'so' is an adverb, meaning 'in such a way', or 'to such an extent'.
> 
> 'So that', in a result clause, means, for example,  'in such a way that': the 'that' clause specifies the particular way in which the result develops.


In your view, the 'so' in [38i] could be analyzed as a pro-form, couldn't it? 



wandle said:


> I was also taught that using 'so' on its own in place of 'so that' was a slang usage, not acceptable in correct written English. I must admit that in this forum I have sometimes broken that rule.


That's neither the traditional grammar nor CGEL grammar, I'm afraid.
For example, I think removing 'that' from [38i] doesn't make it unacceptable or even slang:
_He loves her passionately, *so* he is even willing to give up his job for her._
Here, 'so' is simply a coordinating conjunction in the traditional grammar, and a connective adjunct in CGEL.


----------



## Andygc

JungKim said:


> He loves her passionately, *so* he is even willing to give up his job for her.



I think that is wholly unacceptable.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> Isn't this just another example of CEGL ploughing its own furrow?


This may be right, but I don't think it's like CGEL is isolated in its "new" categorization of parts of speech. In fact, CGEL says their work is based on years of modern linguistic research by many linguists. 

For example, another recent grammar called Oxford Modern English Grammar by Bas Aarts adopts a similar approach in that it also classifies 'so' in [38i] as a preposition.


----------



## JungKim

Andygc said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> _He loves her passionately, *so* he is even willing to give up his job for her._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is wholly unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Really?
But even our own dictionary approves of using 'so' alone:


> The conjunction so (often followed by that) introduces clauses both of purpose (_We ordered our tickets early so that we could get good seats_) and of result (_The river had frozen during the night so people walked across it all the next day_). In formal speech and writing, so that is somewhat more common than so in clauses of purpose. Otherwise, either so or so that is standard.


----------



## wandle

Sorry, I ought to have read post 1 properly.





JungKim said:


> Traditional grammars do not analyze 'so' and 'that' in [38i] individually, but lump 'so that' together as a single unit such as 'a complex subordinating conjunction' or some such.


I agree that 'complex subordinating conjunction' seems ad hoc and unlikely: as does the CGEL line.

 I still see 'so' as an adverb here. The only difference is that its referent is the entire preceding clause, instead of the single word 'passionately'. 'So' looks back to the whole clause, just as 'which' does in the sentence 'He agreed at once, which surprised me'.


----------



## wandle

JungKim said:


> _He loves her passionately, *so* he is even willing to give up his job for her._
> Here, 'so' is simply a coordinating conjunction in the traditional grammar, and a connective adjunct in CGEL.


I still think what is happening here is that the adverb 'so' is being used as a conjunction, which is a slang or colloquial usage: a loose mode of expression, like using 'like' as a conjunction.


----------



## JungKim

wandle said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> _He loves her passionately, *so* he is even willing to give up his job for her._
> Here, 'so' is simply a coordinating conjunction in the traditional grammar, and a connective adjunct in CGEL.
> 
> 
> 
> I still think what is happening here is that the adverb 'so' is being used as a conjunction, which is a slang or colloquial usage: a loose mode of expression, like using 'like' as a conjunction.
Click to expand...

I guess what you call 'an adverb being used as a conjunction' is equivalent to what CGEL calls 'a connective adjunct', in terms of categorization.
On the one hand, all the native speakers here feel that it's not a legitimate use for this kind of 'so' to be directly followed by a content clause without 'that'. On the other hand, both the traditional grammar (as shown in many dictionaries including the WordReference Dictionary and Oxford Online Dictionary) and the CGEL grammar consider this kind of 'so' clearly a legitimate use. So, it's both interesting and confusing.

Oxford Dictionary: 





> 1. And for this reason; therefore.
> _‘it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’
> ‘you know I'm telling the truth, *so* don't interrupt’_


----------



## heypresto

I'm not a grammarian, but these sound fine to me:
_
‘it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’ 
‘you know I'm telling the truth, *so* don't interrupt’ _

Both would sound wrong with 'so that':

_‘it was still painful *so* *that* I went to see a specialist’ 
‘you know I'm telling the truth, *so* *that* don't interrupt’ _


----------



## JungKim

heypresto said:


> I'm not a grammarian, but these sound fine to me:
> _
> ‘it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’
> ‘you know I'm telling the truth, *so* don't interrupt’ _
> 
> Both would sound wrong with 'so that':
> 
> _‘it was still painful *so* *that* I went to see a specialist’
> ‘you know I'm telling the truth, *so* *that* don't interrupt’ _


The second one is an imperative clause, so adding 'that' is understandably ungrammatical.
But why the first one cannot have 'that' after 'so' is beyond me.


----------



## grassy

heypresto said:


> ‘it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’



"So" means here "for that reason". I went to see a specialist because something still hurt me.



heypresto said:


> ‘it was still painful *so* *that* I went to see a specialist’



"So that" indicates purpose, which means that some action is done to produce some desired result expressed in the second part of the sentence. How can "still being painful" be an action done on purpose and "seeing a specialist" be a desired result? It doesn't make sense. I'd advise you to check how "so that" is translated into Korean, so that you can understand it.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> I guess what you call 'an adverb being used as a conjunction' is equivalent to what CGEL calls 'a connective adjunct', in terms of categorization.


Yes.

_‘it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’
‘it was still painful *and for that reason* I went to see a specialist’_


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> In CGEL*:
> 
> Traditional grammars do not analyze  'so' and 'that' in [38i] individually, but lump 'so that' together as a single unit such as 'a complex subordinating conjunction' or some such. Since I'm not a big fan of lumping anything together, I turned to CGEL. But I find it hard to wrap my head around classifying 'so' in [38i] as a preposition.
> 
> As far as I can tell, 'so' in [38i] refers back to the whole clause _He loves her passionately_. Am I right?
> If so, I think it's more like a pro-form than a preposition.
> 
> Can someone who's familiar with CGEL teach me why it should be a preposition, as opposed to a pro-form?
> 
> *Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 734).



There's a good reason for calling "so" in 38i a _preposition_ and not a _conjunction_.

A conjunction is either coordinating or subordinating. A coordinating conjunction joins two elements of equal status (two independent clauses: _I was hungry so I ate a sandwich_), but the two clauses in 38i are not of "equal status." The clause "that he is even willing to give up his job for her" is an _adjunct_ and it can be dropped, leaving behind the basic message ("He loves her passionately").

A feature of subordinating conjunctions is that they can be reversed, putting the subordinating conjunction and the subordinated clause in sentence-initial position (_I ate a sandwich because I was hungry ~ Because I was hungry, I ate a sandwich_). More to the point, "subordination" means that one element ("because I was hungry") is subordinated/dependent on another ("I ate a sandwich"). In 38i, we can't move "so that" to the front: _So that he is even willing to give up his job for her, he loves her passionately _??? And, again, the structured headed by "so that" is an adjunct, and it's not _subordinated_ to anything.

As a result, "so that" is analyzed as a preposition ("so") followed by a content clause ("that ..."). To recognize that "so that" is a unit, some call it a "complex preposition." (By the way, what CGEL calls a "content clause" is just another name for a "noun clause.")

In 38ii, "so" and "that" don't form a unit. Here, "so" functions as an adverb modifying "passionately," and "so" licenses the content clause "that he is even willing to give up his job for her." In other words, the "that-clause" appears because the adverb "so" is present in the sentence.

38i and 38ii differ in their syntax (_so + that clause_ vs _so + adverb + that clause_), but they are semantically equivalent. They express the same meaning in different ways.


----------



## JungKim

grassy said:


> heypresto said:
> 
> 
> 
> _‘it was still painful _*so*_ I went to see a specialist’ _
> 
> 
> 
> "So" means here "for that reason". I went to see a specialist because something still hurt me.
> 
> 
> 
> heypresto said:
> 
> 
> 
> _‘it was still painful *so* *that* I went to see a specialist’ _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So that" indicates purpose, which means that some action is done to produce some desired result expressed in the second part of the sentence. How can "still being painful" be an action done on purpose and "seeing a specialist" be a desired result? It doesn't make sense. I'd advise you to check how "so that" is translated into Korean, so that you can understand it.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand why you say "so that" here indicates 'purpose'. As far as I know, the "so that" here has nothing to do with 'purpose', which only makes it more complicated than necessary.

Just as CGEL's [38i] shown in the OP, I think that "so that I went to see a specialist" functions as "an adjunct of result". So, as long as the clause following "so that" is a result of the main clause, what's the point of talking about 'purpose'?

For me, "I went to see a specialist" can be a legitimate result of "It was still painful" (e.g., even after seeing and being treated by a generalist).

And you seem to distinguish between "so that" and "so" by saying that the latter means "for that reason". Let's assume that "so" alone means "for that reason".
_it was still painful _*so*_ I went to see a specialist_
Then, here, "it was still painful" is the reason, which means "I went to see a specialist" is the result of the foregoing reason, is it not?

In fact, CGEL itself describes this "so" as follows (Page 1539):


> (c) Connective adjunct of reason, consequence
> [71] i _There had been a power failure, so all classes had had to be cancelled._
> ii _I’ve no more to say, so I suggest we move on. _
> Here too _so_ functions as a connective adjunct, this time marking reason or consequence. As with many other connective adjuncts, there is a slight anaphoric component in the meaning: “for this reason, as a result of this”.



In essence, I think CGEL says that both 'so that' in [38i] and 'so' in [71] mean the same thing and are interchangeable.


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> _‘it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’
> ‘it was still painful *and for that reason* I went to see a specialist’_


Paul, are you also saying that 'that' cannot be inserted after 'so' here?


----------



## heypresto

Regardless of what CGEL seems to say, 'so that' and 'so' are _not_ interchangeable in 'it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’. 

It makes no sense as ''it was still painful *so that* I went to see a specialist’.

And nor could you add 'that' to 'so' in _There had been a power failure, *so* all classes had had to be cancelled. _and _I’ve no more to say, *so* I suggest we move on. _


----------



## SevenDays

CGEL doesn't say that "so that" and "so" are interchangeable.
What CGEL says is that when functioning as _adjunct of result_, "so that" is a preposition and not a conjunction. In "so that," _so_ is the equivalent of _with the result_:
_He loves her passionately, so that he is even willing to give up his job for her
He loves her passionately, with the result that he is even willing to give up his job for her_


----------



## JungKim

SevenDays said:


> CGEL doesn't say that "so that" and "so" are interchangeable.
> What CGEL says is that when functioning as _adjunct of result_, "so that" is a preposition and not a conjunction. In "so that," _so_ is the equivalent of _with the result_:
> _He loves her passionately, so that he is even willing to give up his job for her
> He loves her passionately, with the result that he is even willing to give up his job for her_



But as quoted in post #22, CGEL calls "so" in [71] as an "adjunct of consequence". Isn't 'consequence' synonymous with 'result'? I'm really confused.


----------



## PaulQ

'It was still painful *so that* I went to see a specialist’.__
*'So *painful was it *that *I went to see a specialist.' 
‘It was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’ 


"I had been complaining for so long about the pain but I had refused to see a specialist. My family kidnapped me and took me to Dr PaulQ *so that* (and as a consequence) a specialist did examine me."

"Screw it in tightly so that it doesn't fall out."

So that seems to introduce a consequence rather than a result.


----------



## Loob

As I recall, CGEL uses the term "preposition" for many things traditionally called adverbs.


----------



## heypresto

I feel like I'm the only one here who doesn't know what CGEL is.


----------



## Loob

Good point, heypresto

It's the _Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, _by Huddleston & Pullum, published in ... I'll have to go away and check.


----------



## heypresto

Thanks for that.


----------



## Loob

... published in ...
_2002_


----------



## SevenDays

JungKim said:


> But as quoted in post #22, CGEL calls "so" in [71] as an "adjunct of consequence". Isn't 'consequence' synonymous with 'result'? I'm really confused.



CGEL doesn't make a distinction between "adjunct of reason" and "adjunct of consequence," as you show in post #22. CGEL's classification of adjuncts is on the basis of meaning (not grammatical form), so the distinction between "reason" and "consequence" at times is bound to be foggy, nebulous, hard to see.

When used as "adjunct of reason/consequence," CGEL calls "so" in "so that" a preposition (post #21) rather than a "conjunction." Come to think of it, CGEL doesn't use the term "conjunction" at all; they prefer "coordinator" and "subordinator," and "so" in "so that" is neither.


----------



## Siavash2015

Added to previous thread.
Cagey, moderator 

Hi teachers,
Would you please tell me what "so that " means in the following conversation?
I know it means "in order to"
But it doesn't fit the context.

B: Hi, I need a new suit. I have an important interview next week, so I really need to look sharp.

A: No problem! We have a broad selection of suits, all tailored made so that it will fit perfectly.


----------



## PaulQ

Siavash2015 said:


> I know it means "in order to"


No it doesn't.
It means "and consequently".


----------



## Siavash2015

PaulQ said:


> No it doesn't.
> It means "and consequently".


Hi Paul
Interesting!
I couldn't guess.  Would you please make an "so that"?
Is the following self-made sentence correct?

I didn't study enough *so that *I failed the test.


----------



## PaulQ

No.

I didn't study enough *so *that I failed the test. so -> "as a result".


----------



## Siavash2015

PaulQ said:


> No.
> 
> I didn't study enough *so *that I failed the test. so -> "as a result".



I can't understand why this sentence is incorrect. 
I didn't study enough so that I failed the test.
I didn't study enough consequently I failed the test.
I didn't study enough as a result I failed the test


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> 'It was still painful *so that* I went to see a specialist’.__
> *'So *painful was it *that *I went to see a specialist.'
> ‘It was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’
> 
> 
> "I had been complaining for so long about the pain but I had refused to see a specialist. My family kidnapped me and took me to Dr PaulQ *so that* (and as a consequence) a specialist did examine me."
> 
> "Screw it in tightly so that it doesn't fall out."
> 
> So that seems to introduce a consequence rather than a result.


Paul, which 'so that' were you referring to in your last sentence?
Were you referring to the 'specialist' sentence or 'Screw it' sentence?

Also, in any case, under what definition of these words, are you distinguishing 'consequence' from 'result'. Last time I checked, they were synonyms.


----------



## JungKim

heypresto said:


> Regardless of what CGEL seems to say, 'so that' and 'so' are _not_ interchangeable in 'it was still painful *so* I went to see a specialist’.
> 
> It makes no sense as ''it was still painful *so that* I went to see a specialist’.
> 
> And nor could you add 'that' to 'so' in _There had been a power failure, *so* all classes had had to be cancelled. _and _I’ve no more to say, *so* I suggest we move on. _



Here's a usage note from American Heritage Dictionary:


> Both _so_ and _so that_ are acceptably used to introduce clauses that state a result or consequence: _The Bay Bridge was still closed, so_ (or _so that_) _the drive from San Francisco to the Berkeley campus took an hour and a half._



'So that' can introduce a purpose on the one hand and a result/consequence on the other.
In CGEL, the former is called 'purposive so that' and the latter 'resultative so that'.
When I started this thread, I was solely focused on the latter, 'resultative so that'. And I've been told over and over again by a number of native speakers here in this thread that in this 'resultative so that' you may not omit 'that', or that you may not add 'that' to the conjunctive adjunct 'so' introducing a result/consequence.

But in the usage note quoted above, they seem to be saying that even in the 'resultative so that' you may omit 'that'. If you go to that link, you can see that they say the same thing about the 'purposive so that' (i.e., you may omit 'that' in the 'purposive so that'), which I did not quote here since this thread is not about the 'purposive so that'.

_The Bay Bridge was still closed, so_ (or _so that_) _the drive from San Francisco to the Berkeley campus took an hour and a half._
Is this sentence from the usage note different from other sentences that we've been discussing so far in that it can allow either 'so' or 'so that' in the resultative sense? Or do native speakers including yourself disagree with the quoted portion of the usage note?


----------



## heypresto

To me, 'The Bay Bridge was still closed, _so that _the drive from San Francisco to the Berkeley campus took an hour and a half.' sounds strange, and I can't imagine ever saying it. Maybe it's an AE/BE thing?

I'll leave the technicalities to a better grammarian that I am.


----------



## JungKim

heypresto said:


> Maybe it's an AE/BE thing?


I doubt that.
I've been looking up this resultative 'so that' in other grammars.
Here's one that I've found: "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" by Quirk (page 1108):


> *15.49 Clauses of result*
> Clauses of result are subordinators _so that_ <formal> and _so_.
> ...
> _We paid him immediately, so (that) he left contended._ [result] [1]
> _We paid him immediately so (that) he would leave contended._ [purpose] [2]
> ...
> When _that _is omitted in the result clause, the conjunction _so_ is indistinguishable from the conjunct _so_ in asyndetic coordination.
> ...



Note that Quirk's CGEL, which came out in 1985, considers 'so' in [1] a conjunction, whereas Pullum's CGEL, which came out in 2002, considers the same 'so' a preposition.

Although Quirk's CGEL was called at the time "a grammar that transcends national boundaries", most authors including Quirk are British linguists. And In this section where they mentioned the possibility of omitting 'that' in the result 'so that' clause, there was no mention of this omission being an American usage.

EDIT: Maybe the reason you and other native speakers in this thread find the resultative 'so that' and 'so without that' not interchangeable is because the former is rather formal, as noted in Quirk's CGEL? But even so, I don't understand how being 'formal' or 'informal' can make a grammatical construction ungrammatical and/or unacceptable.


----------



## cando

The confusion, it here seems to me, could be cleared up by noting that "so that" indicates_ intention_ not merely consequence. If I say, "The bridge was closed so that the drive took an hour and a half", it says to me that someone closed the bride with the express intention of making the journey longer. Whereas using "so" indicates that it was a simple consequence.

There may also be confusion arising because of apparently similar constructions like, "My knee was* so* painful *that* I went to the doctor". This is _not_ an instance of "so that" being used to indicate consequence. It is not an instance of "so that" at all. The "so" is simply emphatic, flagging up that the extremity of the  pain was causative of the following action described by a relative clause which begins with a standalone, consequential "that".


----------



## heypresto

cando said:


> The confusion, it here seems to me, could be cleared up by noting that "so that" indicates_ intention_ not merely consequence. If I say, "The bridge was closed so that the drive took an hour and a half", it says to me that someone closed the bride with the express intention of making the journey longer. Whereas using "so" indicates that it was a simple consequence.



I agree with your interpretation of that sentence, but in the original sentence it said 'The bridge was _still_ closed . . . '. In this version it is, for me, just about possible to interpret it in the same way, but I find it rather more of a stretch.


----------



## JungKim

cando said:


> The confusion, it here seems to me, could be cleared up by noting that "so that" indicates_ intention_ not merely consequence. If I say, "The bridge was closed so that the drive took an hour and a half", it says to me that someone closed the bride with the express intention of making the journey longer. Whereas using "so" indicates that it was a simple consequence.


Your "intention" is what Quirk's CGEL and Pullum's CGEL say "purpose". And so that your sentence can more clearly indicate "intention/purpose" as opposed to "result/consequence", I think that a modal should be used in the 'that' clause: _The bridge was closed so that the drive *would* take an hour and a half. _Otherwise, your sentence, I think, should be more likely to be interpreted like this: "The bridge was closed with the result that the drive took an hour and a half."



cando said:


> There may also be confusion arising because of apparently similar constructions like, "My knee was* so* painful *that* I went to the doctor". This is _not_ an instance of "so that" being used to indicate consequence. It is not an instance of "so that" at all. The "so" is simply emphatic, flagging up that the extremity of the  pain was causative of the following action described by a relative clause which begins with a standalone, consequential "that".


To be exact, I think that the that-clause "that I went to the doctor" is not a relative clause but a content clause.


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> Maybe the reason you and other native speakers in this thread find the resultative 'so that' and 'so without that' not interchangeable is because the former is rather formal, as noted in Quirk's CGEL? But even so, I don't understand how being 'formal' or 'informal' can make a grammatical construction ungrammatical and/or unacceptable.


For me personally, the distinction isn't between formal and less formal, but between older and more modern.

Jane Austen happily used *so that* meaning 'and as a result': here are a couple of examples from _Emma:_
May is the very month in which Mrs Churchill is ordered, or has ordered herself, to spend in some warmer place than Enscombe – in short, to spend in London; so that we have the agreeable prospect of frequent visits from Frank the whole spring...​
Isabella stepped in after her father; John Knightley, forgetting that he did not belong to their party, stepped in after his wife very naturally; so that Emma found, on being escorted and followed into the second carriage by Mr. Elton, that the door was to be lawfully shut on them, and that they were to have a tête-à-tête drive...​I wouldn't use *so that *in either of those contexts myself - although I can, of course, understand it.

And it may well be still-current usage in some varieties of English.


----------



## PaulQ

Loob said:


> Huddleston & Pullum,





JungKim said:


> Note that Quirk's CGEL, which came out in 1985, considers 'so' in [1] a conjunction, whereas Pullum's CGEL, which came out in 2002, considers the same 'so' a preposition.


A lot of what CGEL states is explained when you read the names "Huddleston & Pullum," who often are portrayed as iconoclasts and "ploughing their own, revolutionary, furrow."


----------



## SevenDays

True; iconoclasts _taking on the traditional grammar establishment._


----------



## PaulQ

​


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> For me personally, the distinction isn't between formal and less formal, but between older and more modern.
> 
> Jane Austen happily used *so that* meaning 'and as a result': here are a couple of examples from _Emma:_
> May is the very month in which Mrs Churchill is ordered, or has ordered herself, to spend in some warmer place than Enscombe – in short, to spend in London; so that we have the agreeable prospect of frequent visits from Frank the whole spring...​
> Isabella stepped in after her father; John Knightley, forgetting that he did not belong to their party, stepped in after his wife very naturally; so that Emma found, on being escorted and followed into the second carriage by Mr. Elton, that the door was to be lawfully shut on them, and that they were to have a tête-à-tête drive...​I wouldn't use *so that *in either of those contexts myself - although I can, of course, understand it.
> 
> And it may well be still-current usage in some varieties of English.



Actually, come to think of it, whatever it's worth, I'm not that familiar with the resultative 'so that' either, myself.
But I've never seen any grammar or any dictionary describe the resultative 'so that' as non-standard or outdated or anything. I've not seen all the grammars and dictionaries in the world yet, but I seriously doubt that you'll find such a grammar or a dictionary.

So my question is, if indeed the resultative 'so that' is Jane Austen-old, why do you think neither the two CGELs nor all the dictionaries mark the resultative 'so that' as _archaic _or even _old-fashioned_? Likewise, if it's currently being used only in 'some' varieties of English other than British English, why wouldn't they mark the phrase accordingly (e.g., non-standard, Southern American, Scotland, etc.)?

Moreover, I can easily find an example or two of the resultative 'so that' from Google News:
(1) Prince Charles warns that 'plastic is now on the menu' due to the amount ingested by fish (The Telegragh) posted on 5 October 2017


> “The eight million tonnes of plastic that enter the sea every year - through our own doing I might add - is now almost ubiquitous”, the prince told a global conference on safeguarding the world's oceans. "For all the plastic that we have produced since the 1950s that has ended up in the ocean is still with us in one form or another, so that wherever you swim there are particles of plastic near you and we are very close to reaching the point when whatever wild-caught fish you eat will contain plastic.



(2) If journalists take sides, who will speak truth to power? (The Guardian) posted on 6 October 2017


> From the ecstatic noise around Jeremy Corbyn to those slightly desperate Tories who now swoon at Jacob Rees-Mogg, British politics is newly alive with passion and ideological division. The wider world reflects much the same picture: even on high streets in Kent and Greater Manchester, one can sense the same kind of fevered polarisation – so that, as I discovered in Gillingham last week, asking even mild questions about the consequences of Brexit occasionally invites such ripostes as, “You’re a remainer, aintcha?”



Is neither the resultative 'so that'?


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> A lot of what CGEL states is explained when you read the names "Huddleston & Pullum," who often are portrayed as iconoclasts and "ploughing their own, revolutionary, furrow."


Paul, I'm well aware you're not a huge fan of Huddleston or Pullum or their CGEL. 
But I don't think simply seeking the status quo is an option when it comes to the English grammar, because it's way too complicated and even messy. And sometimes, you have to be unpopular to get the job done, I think. I don't think CGEL's anywhere near perfect but I think it's better than any other grammar so far.


----------

