So that vehicles are able to leave before the traffic gets heavier.

Question

We have contacted The Lady Eleanor Holles School (LEH) and have decided that we (Hampton, Denmead and LEH) will close the schools at 3:00 pm on Friday 18 September 2015 so that vehicles are able to leave before the traffic gets heavier.

This is a passage in an English book for a test and I was wondering if the 'so that sentence' is used for a purpose or a result?

I study English every day so that I can speak English (purpose)

His father died suddenly(,) so that he stopped studying (result)

I have learned that if there is helping verbs like can, may, will, could, might, etc, 'so that sentences' are used for purpose and there is no such verbs, 'so that sentences' are used for result.

However, I feel like the 'so that sentence' in the text can carry two interpretation for purpose and result and there is no meaning difference.

Speak loudly, so that we can hear you (result)

Here in the sentence, for the result meaning, 'can' is used, and then 'can' is also used for result in 'so that sentence'?

And some says if there is a comma, it is a result but I think that the comma is optional so it does not play a role to figure out if so that sentence is a result or a purpose, right?

What do you native English speakers think?

Thank you so much as usual in advance.

GPY · Accepted Answer

Hans51This is a passage in an English book for a test and I was wondering if the 'so that sentence' is used for a purpose or a result?

Purpose. (Purpose of closing at that time.)

Hans51I study English every day so that I can speak English (purpose) His father died suddenly(,) so that he stopped studying (result)

Neither of these is a very good sentence. The first one seems awkwardly expressed. In the second case you would use "so", not "so that".

Hans51Speak loudly, so that we can hear you (result)

In my view this expresses result or effect whether or not there is a comma, but the comma is not necessary (I would say that technically the comma is incorrect). I'm not sure it's possible to tell someone to do something with a particular purpose. The purpose has to come from the doer's own intention or volition. This could be a debatable point.

CalifJim · Answer

Someone else asked a similar question recently, or was it you?

Anyway, as I said in answering that question, I don't notice so much that "so that" is used to show results. It's normally just "so" (usually with the meaning "therefore").

His father died suddenly, so he stopped studying. (result)

The dead giveaway here (if I can say it that way

) is that the death of a person never occurs, that I know of, with a purpose in mind. Theologies aside, no one dies in order to accomplish something, so this can't be a case of showing purpose. Here the very meaning of the sentence argues more strongly against "purpose" than the absence of modal verbs.

"so that" is used almost exclusively for purpose, though what is confusing is that "so" alone can also be used to show purpose.

Hans51Speak loudly so that we can hear you ~~(result)~~ (purpose)

This is an imperative. It would be strange to know the result of your command at the moment you make the command. It requires foreknowledge of the future. Therefore, this one is "purpose", not "result".

Hans51Here in the sentence, for the result meaning, 'can' is used, and then 'can' is also used for result in 'so that sentence'?And some says if there is a comma, it is a result but I think that the comma is optional so it does not play a role to figure out if so that sentence is a result or a purpose, right?

I would not take the presence of modal verbs as a reliable cue. The comma test seems a little more reliable to me, though not foolproof.

Beth's parents were away, so she could invite all her friends over for a party. (modal, but result)
Sing the baby a lullaby so (that) she stops crying and falls asleep. (no modal, but purpose)

CJ

GPY · Answer

CalifJimThis is an imperative. It would be strange to know the result of your command at the moment you make the command. It requires foreknowledge of the future. Therefore, this one is "purpose", not "result".

I can't agree here, I'm afraid. I think that the speaker is desiring a certain result or outcome, namely that the words can be heard, not asking the addressee to speak with a certain purpose.

CalifJim · Answer

GPYI think that the speaker is asking for a result or outcome

It's trivially true that all statements of purpose implicitly contain a desired result, but I don't see that as the main point in classifying these clauses. A result is a "therefore" statement. You can only derive a "therefore" statement from a declarative statement, not from an imperative or an interrogative. There are no logical consequences to a command, only behavioral ones. Either the command is obeyed or not. To my sense of logic, the following is not a valid sequence.

I command you to speak loudly. Therefore, everyone will hear you.

In contrast, if I change the tense, I can express a result.

I spoke loudly, so everyone heard me.

Now it is my speaking loudly that creates a result, not my commanding, which can't. Where a command is concerned I can only have a purpose for issuing the command.

CJ

GPY · Answer

CalifJimWhere a command is concerned I can only have a purpose for issuing the command.

Do you mean that you think the "purpose" in "Speak loudly[,] so that we can hear you" is the speaker's purpose rather than the addressee's?

CalifJim · Answer

The speaker's purpose. Or maybe both. The purpose can be thought of as a mutual purpose I suppose. The speaker wants the listener to adopt the purpose as his own. I imagine the speaker is one of the "we" who want to hear the "you" being commanded.

I suppose I'd paraphrase it something like the following.

Speak loudly to accomplish the purpose of making us able to hear you.
Speak loudly in order to allow us to hear you.

Were you thinking of some other meaning? I'm trying to see it but not succeeding.

CJ

GPY · Answer

CalifJimThe speaker's purpose.

I hadn't even considered that.

CalifJim The purpose can be thought of as a mutual purpose I suppose.

Though approximate paraphrases can no doubt be constructed to express a mutual purpose, for me, the actual words "Speak loudly[,] so that we can hear you", must, if they express purpose, express the addressee's purpose. In other words, they would be a command to do what the addressee would describe as "I am speaking loudly so that you can hear me" (for example). And, for me, therein lies the problem. In my view it is debatable whether the speaker can instruct the addressee to do something with a purpose that comes from the addressee himself. I woudn't say it is always impossible, but for me it is an odd interpretation of the sentence in question.

CalifJim · Answer

GPYa command to do what the addressee would describe as "I am speaking loudly so that you can hear me"

I see the "purpose" as rather free-floating, I suppose — not anchored to any one participant in the dialog, but more of an abstraction that applies to both. By anyone's reasoning, if you speak more loudly, the chances are greater that others can hear you. It's a statement of a scientific principle.

If, however, we want to talk of the purpose as belonging to one or the other participant, then I'd say it begins as the speaker's purpose, and the command the speaker makes is designed to encourage the listener to take it up as his own purpose, for after all, it's a scientific principle that is involved, and there is no reason for a reasonable listener to reject that principle.

I can only return to my former point that a command to do X does not necessarily result in X, yet a command can be given with a "so that" clause which explains why (i.e., the purpose for which) it is being given. I don't see any reason to change the designation from "result" to "purpose" when moving from 1) to 2) below, for example.

1) Speak loudly so that we can hear you.
2) He spoke loudly so that we could hear him.

I take 2) certainly to be a case of "purpose" (as I do for 1)), but maybe you see that as "result" as well. The corresponding "result sentence" for me is 3).

3) [At first he spoke too softly to be heard, but then ] he spoke loudly, so we did hear him. (We heard him because he spoke loudly.)
_________

In short, I see purpose as hypothetical future causation (an 'in order to' or 'if you do this, you will get that' relation) and result as demonstrable past causation (a 'therefore' or 'because' relation).

CJ

Hans51 · Answer

Thank you both so much!

I have learned that if there is helping verbs like can, may, will, could, might, etc, 'so that sentences' are used for purpose and there is no such verbs, 'so that sentences' are used for result.

Do you agree with this explanation, then?

If you do not mind, could you give me any sentences where 'so that sentences' are used for result with the helping verbs both in the present and the past tense and 'so that sentences' are used for purpose without the helping verbs?

Thank you so much again!

GPY · Answer

Hans51I have learned that if there is helping verbs like can, may, will, could, might, etc, 'so that sentences' are used for purpose and there is no such verbs, 'so that sentences' are used for result. Do you agree with this explanation, then?

Not really. I think one thing to keep in mind is that "so that" usually expresses purpose. I'm not finding it easy to think of clear-cut examples of "so that" expressing result. Do you have any examples from your book? (The imperative case discussed above is a kind of oddity -- and the reason why, in my view, it does not express purpose, namely that you cannot normally impose purpose on another's actions, does not seem relevant to or applicable to the more general situation.)

So that vehicles are able to leave before the traffic gets heavier.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions