He looked at job advertisements so as to find a new job.

I instinctively used 'so as to' when writing today, and I started wondering what its grammatical function is. This resource (one of few that I can locate online) says that it's a subordinating conjunction; however, aren't subordinate conjunctions supposed to link to subordinate clauses? And shouldn't a clause contain a subject and a verb?

The only example I can think of that contradicts this is something like this:

He was happy though sad.

Even that sentence looks off to me, though.

  • In your "happy/sad" example sentence, though is not a subordinating but a coordinating conjunction Sep 28, 2021 at 18:56
  • While older grammars hold that a clause requires a finite verb, newer works use the concept of a nonfinite clause such as an infinitival clause. This would be an example, and the subject is implicit.
    – rjpond
    Sep 28, 2021 at 20:01

1 Answer 1


I would agree with your resource that "so as to" is here a subordinating conjunction. It introduces "find a new job", which has the verb "find" and an implied subject of "himself".

The Wikipedia article "Clause" says:

In language, a clause is a constituent that links a semantic predicand (expressed or not) and a semantic predicate. A typical clause consists of a subject and a syntactic predicate, the latter typically a verb phrase, a verb with any objects and other modifiers. However, the subject is sometimes not said or explicit, often the case in null-subject languages if the subject is retrievable from context, but it sometimes also occurs in other languages such as English (as in imperative sentences and non-finite clauses). ...


A finite clause contains a structurally central finite verb, whereas the structurally central word of a non-finite clause is often a non-finite verb. Traditional grammar focuses on finite clauses, the awareness of non-finite clauses having arisen much later in connection with the modern study of syntax.

Even if the final element contained only a verb, as in:

He looked at job advertisements so as to succeed.

I would still call "so as to" subordinating conjunction. Here the final clause is reduced and the subject is implied, but it is still a dependent clause.

By the way, my personal view is that 'in order to" is clearer and better writing than "so as to" here, and in many cases where a subordinating conjunction (and the resulting subordinate clause) is intended to express purpose. But that is a matter of style, there is nothing at all wrong with using "so as to".

You must log in to answer this question.

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