Omission of "there is" in a clause
Is this an omission (ellipsis)? What is this omission called in linguistics?
What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is a huge explosion of self- and mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call "theory" and "philosophy," but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing." (source)
"there is" seems to be elided in this sentence which I'd have written as:
What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is a huge explosion of self- and mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call "theory" and "philosophy," but there is little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing."
Solution 1:
There is no missing there is that’s been elided in this sentence:
What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is a huge explosion of self- and mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call "theory" and "philosophy," but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing".
Everything after propound through the end of the sentence is the direct object of that verb. It’s a compound noun phrase with these two distinct NPs joined together by the coordinating conjunction but:
- what (they call "theory" and "philosophy,")
- little (that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing".)
So it’s
among those who propound what (...) but little (that ...) beyond ....
The first of the two objects is a fused relative clause. It can be paraphrased to
the thing which they call "theory" and "philosophy"
The second of the two objects is a that-relative clause starting off with the nominalized quantifier little. You can tell this because there is a notional "gap":
little (that I can detect ____) beyond ...
Here that nominalized little is the gapped-out direct object of detect. The word that could be omitted here with no change in meaning.
Solution 2:
There is a problem, and you are close with the idea of ellipsis involving ‘there is’, but not quite as you have set it out.
What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is a huge explosion of self- and mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call "theory" and "philosophy," but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing."
To begin with, he is saying (in brief) two things have “changed”:-
“What has changed is an explosion” ....
Of course, ‘explosion’ is a familiar metaphor for lots of things happening in a rapid and disorderly fashion. But they do not change: they happen. So
what has changed is that there has been an explosion
Now all this pretentious stuff is
what they call "theory" and "philosophy," but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing".
The grammar presupposes that the subject and verb of these two subordinate clauses share the same subject and verb: “they call”. but they don’t and can’t: you are right. However “there is” doesn’t quite work either. The author is saying what s/he thinks all this pretentious stuff really is, and your “there is” introduces a new subject of discussion rather than a new and scornful description of the pompously misdescribed one. Moreover, instead of supplying an less flattering pair of nouns, s/he describes what it contains. So “which is” does not quite work either. What is needed is:
“... those who propound what they call "theory" and "philosophy," but **which contains **little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing."
The passage is, of course, not sober exposition but an aspect of oratory, called ‘invective’. Invective involves anger and syntactically uncontrolled anger often loses its way, as has this passage. It is not difficult the see what is meant, and, were is delivered as a speech, an audience might not notice anything amiss.
But if it is to be circulated and read, the author needs more care or a good editor. We should all, in such cases be asking ourselves
Does what I have written say exactly what I mean?
Solution 3:
I parse it as :
What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is:
- a huge explosion of self- and mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call "theory" and "philosophy,"
- but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing."
i.e. you can make a complete sentence of:
What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is but little that I can detect beyond "pseudo-scientific posturing."
The meaning of the phrase "but little" is probably a separate question.