1

Taking a similar example:

  • Please check that the light is off.
  • Please check the light is off.

are both correct (the reason given is "the light is off" is a complete sentence).

Now what about:

  • It'll shrink to the extent that it'll break

Can it be abbreviated in:

  • It'll shrink to the extent it'll break

I see official publications omitting "that", e.g. from the EU Commission:

Finally Article 87(3)c of the Treaty is relevant to the extent it concerns promotion of training.

Still I suspect it's not correct, but I don't get the exact reason. On the other hand using "that" seems to me a little formal, and I wonder if there are correct alternatives.

I'm asking in general, but my context is mostly American English.

Improve this question
5
  • The that actually does not seem necessary to me in your second sentence. This might be a regional or dialect difference, though.
    – stangdon
    Commented Sep 12 at 12:35
  • 1
    @stangdon - speaking as a Brit, I'd find 'to the extent it'll break', with 'that' omitted, informal and not only American-sounding, but New Yawkish.
    – Michael Harvey
    Commented Sep 12 at 14:21
  • @MichaelHarvey - Reading Ngrams is like reading tea leaves, but I think I do see hints that while the that-ful version is more common on both sides of the pond, it's more more common in Britain: books.google.com/ngrams/…
    – stangdon
    Commented Sep 12 at 19:43
  • @stangdon - yes, given that Ngrams results are derived from indexing printed material, and that any pondial differences are liable to be skewed by each side's publication of the other side's works, any comparative figures for informal spoken English usages are going to be very tea-leafish indeed.
    – Michael Harvey
    Commented Sep 12 at 19:49
  • 1
    If you're going to say "it'll" you might as well drop "to the extent that" and say instead "It will shrink so much (that) it breaks".
    – TimR
    Commented Sep 12 at 23:44

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

It is necessary in your second example. "To the extent it will break" could be understood as "how much it will break".

'That' makes it clear you are introducing a subordinate clause and that you are making a link between the extent to which it is shrunk and the possibility of it breaking as a result of that shrinking.

Improve this answer
2

Both are noun clauses introduced by "that". In the first sentence, the clause is an object (of the verb "check"). In the second sentence, the clause is a complement of a noun ("extent").

When a noun clause is an object, "that" is omissible.

When a noun clause is a complement of a noun, it is somewhat a grey area. On omitting "that" in general, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 953-954) say:

The default case is the one where that is present as a marker of the subordinate status of the clause. Departures from this default case, declaratives without that, are more likely in informal than in formal style. For the rest, the relative likelihood of dropping the that depends largely on the structure of the matrix clause but also on that of the content clause itself.

They list the following example as "favouring the retention" of "that":

"I didn't like his insinuation [that we had initiated the complaint]."

and say

In [the above example] it is complement to a noun; omission is not impossible in this construction, but it is unlikely with a morphologically complex noun like "insinuation" (compare "The fact [it was illegal] didn't seem to worry him", with the simple noun "fact" as head).

They do not explain why (morphological) complexity favours the retention of "that", but using their logic, I would argue that the phrase "to the extent that" is (syntactically and semantically) complex and therefore dictates the retention of "that", at least formally.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .