There is so much (that) is at stake for many.

Can we omit 'that' in this sentence?

  • "that" can be omitted when the relative clause has a non-subject gap. (I'm not going to post and answer, but that's a good clue :)) – user178049 Apr 17 '17 at 8:36
  • Btw, I would doubt this is a relative clause or a grammatical sentence. – user178049 Apr 17 '17 at 8:55
  • 1
    Gap is missing constituent,but the missing element is implied. "I like the girl (that) you introduced to me yesterday". Note that the direct obj of the verb "introduce" is missing, because it is not a subject, the relativizer can be omitted. But with a subject gap, it's not possible "The girl that sleeps in the room." note that the subject of the verb 'sleep' is missing. But I still doubt, I'm not sure your whether sentence is an example of relative clause or not. – user178049 Apr 17 '17 at 9:11
  • 1
    @user178049 It is a relative construction. "So much" is a fused determiner-head noun phrase that can function as antecedent just like any other NP. – BillJ Apr 17 '17 at 12:05
  • 1
    @user178049 Yes, that's right. "Much" (as used here) combines the function of determiner and head, hence "so much" is a noun phrase with "much" as fused determiner-head. – BillJ Apr 17 '17 at 12:18
up vote 8 down vote accepted

No, the relative pronoun that cannot be omitted in the sentence "There is so much (that) is at stake for many".

This is because that functions as the subject of the defining relative clause that is at stake. When the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause it cannot be omitted.

The same applies to the other relative pronouns. For example:

  • There are so many people who are in jobs they dislike.
  • There is so much which is unknown about the universe.

If, on the other hand, the pronoun functions as the object of the relative clause, then it can be omitted:

  • There is so much (that) you can do to make the world a better place.
  • There are so many people (who/m) I would like to thank.
  • There is so much which we don't know about the universe.

Object pronoun omission is very common in spoken English.

More information: Defining relative clauses


Addendum:

This addendum picks up on points made by @BillJ and @Snailplane that that in sentences such as the OP's is not regarded as a relative pronoun by some modern linguists.

In chapter 12, section 3.5.6 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language Huddleston, Pullum and Peterson make the case for that being treated as a subordinator, not as a relative pronoun. They discuss several ways in which that is different from the 'uncontroversial' relative pronouns (who, which, whose), including Lack of upward percolation, Finiteness and Omissibility.

Huddleston and Pullum's A Student's Introduction to English Grammar contains a shorter analysis of the same issue. It contrasts the two sentences:

  • They rejected the suggestion which your son made. (relative clause)

  • They rejected the suggestion that your son was lying. (content clause)

Clearly, it would be problematic to call that in the second sentence above a relative pronoun, not least because it cannot be replaced by the relative pronoun which. But, for me the issue is less clear cut in sentences such as:

  • They rejected the suggestion that your son made.
  • The Hyundai Santa Fe was the first car that crossed Antarctica.

where that can indeed by replaced by which.

Ultimately, however, I suspect that visitors to this ELL site are less interested in terminology than grammaticality. The terminology issue would be a good one for the sister site ELU.

There is a discussion of that as a relativizer on Wikipedia's English relative clauses.

  • Nice post and nice to see you! – Araucaria Apr 18 '17 at 13:32
  • 1
    @Araucaria Man. Thanks. I've finally found a bit of time to answer a question or two. But I look in on this site and ELU most days, and I appreciate your efforts in Meta to reopen questions that are more nuanced than the too-hasty closers might realise! – Shoe Apr 20 '17 at 15:37

Others have explained why you can't simply omit the "that". However, in this case it would be idiomatic to omit "that is", leaving "There is so much at stake for many."

  • 4
    Also, "So much is at stake for many." – ell Apr 17 '17 at 17:03
  • 1
    I'd spring for an extra "so": "There is so much at stake for so many." It's not mandatory, but it gives the sentence a nice parallel structure. – Kevin Apr 18 '17 at 6:08

There is so much that ___ is at stake for many

Initial point: "that" is not a relative pronoun; it is a clause subordinator.

In this case it is not omissible.

The relativised element is covert; it’s missing and represented by the '___' notation, called 'gap'. "So much" is antecedent to the gap functioning as Subject, which is the reason that "that" is not omissible.

We understand the relative clause to mean: "so much is at stake for many".

Yes, but you must also omit "is."

"There is so much at stake for many."

Now it's a nice, concise phrase.

This kind of elision is common in spoken and written English. "That is..." phrases can help clarify and position ideas in complex sentences, but they can often be left out to make shorter, more forceful sentences.

When the relative pronoun acts is a clause subordinator and is the subject of a relative clause, it has to be included. You cannot omit it in this case. More examples:

  • I have a robot that can speak.
  • Mary has got toys that are made of metal.

BBC Learning English

  • 1
    I think that the "three conditions" is inexactly related to the question. "the boss said.." there's really nothing to do with a relative clause in this example. . – user178049 Apr 17 '17 at 9:20
  • The three conditions you cite are relevant to "that" when it introduces content clauses. The examples you give are all content clauses, not relative clauses, where different considerations apply. Also, "that" is not a relative pronoun, but a clause subordinator. – BillJ Apr 17 '17 at 12:02
  • @BillJ Can you link me to the grammar? Can't see why it isn't a relative pronoun here. – SovereignSun Apr 17 '17 at 12:04
  • Are you asking why "that" is not a relative pronoun, or why your examples are not relatives? – BillJ Apr 17 '17 at 12:06
  • 3
    @SovereignSun In traditional grammar, that was certainly analyzed as a relative pronoun, and that's why you can find so many resources that say so even today. But about a hundred years ago, the great Otto Jespersen noticed that its grammatical properties weren't quite the same as those of the other relative pronouns, so he asked, what if it's the same that found in other subordinate clauses? And that seemed to fit better. Today modern linguists such as Huddleston and Pullum, along with linguists like McCawley, treat that as a subordinator/complementizer and not as a relative pronoun. – snailboat Apr 17 '17 at 20:59

protected by snailboat Apr 17 '17 at 20:27

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.