Which Vs That

[Deleted]

Hi

I really appreciate a 'quick guide' to how to properly use 'which' and 'that'. It is my understanding that 'which' is used when introducing something not vital to the sense of the sentence and 'that' is used when the thing being introduced is vital.

I know there are countless other ways to use both words but I'm particularly concerned with these examples.

Is, 'the house which was pink burnt down' better than, 'the house that was pink burnt down.'? For example.

Many thanks

[Geoff]

Benners,

I think the distinction you're looking for is usually referred to as defining clauses and non-defining clauses. A defining clause usually starts with that while a non-defining clause starts with which and is usually set apart from the rest of the sentence by the use of commas (effectively parenthesis) as it is incidental information or, as you suggest, not vital to the sense of the sentence.

It is not possible to answer your question as to which of the two examples you cite is the better as they both have quite different interpretations (if I'm allowed to add the commas I spoke of).

The house, which was pink, burnt down. Here, what is important is the fact that the house burnt down. It just so happened that the house was pink. (which was pink = non-defining clause)

The house that was pink burnt down. Here, what is being said is that of a number of different houses, it was the pink one that burnt down. (that was pink = defining clause)

I don't know if that's enough on the subject to clarify matters for you. Perhaps someone might add to what I've said.

[Vadim]

Perhaps someone might add to what I've said.

Just to add a little something to what Geoff, so excellently, put...

Maybe to clarify your example better, it would be advisable to look at two situations (as Geoff pointed out). Consider the following:

a1 and a2, two different meanings, both correct. However, say for instance that the "pinkness" of the house actually had an effect. substituting "pink" with "built on sand" and "burnt down" with "washed away"...

In this instance, there is a distinction for me, as it is (ime) saying that the sand definitely made the house vulnerable to being washed away.

I've confused myself now! Sorry, Benners.

[Dave M]

Hi, benners

What Geoff says is true (and well put). We need to be careful, in using commas, to make clear whether the clause is a defining one (saying something "vital", as you put it), or a non-defining one (saying something not vital).

I'll add this, though:

The use of "that" for defining and "which" for non-defining is a pattern which some people were taught as "correct". However, in general use, many people use both, rather haphazardly. I myself tend to use "which" all the time, and rarely "that", for example.

So: choosing "which" or "that" is not much noticed by many people and the meaning will be carried, but getting the commas wrong is fatal to the meaning!

[Tone]

Hello, Benners.

As Geoff has well put it very well, and Dave M has stressed that the commas are critical, I would merely add that the which/that distinction seems to be much more firmly abided by in America than it is in England.

Tone

[Paul Doherty]

Vadim, I'm not sure your examples help, as b1 and b2 use commas the wrong way round -- you have them with that and not with which. As b1 and b2 are non-standard usage (or "wrong" in plain English), I'm not sure what point you were making. Sorry!

[Verbivore]

I do like to keep my whiches and thats for defining and non-defining clause use, but need to stay aware when writing them, as throughout my Oz schooling I was taught to prefer which over that - that being regarded (godnozewhy) as lower-class! Geez - the rubbish we were taught!

[Vadim]

Jul 16, 2008 22:31:55 GMT Paul Doherty said:

Vadim, I'm not sure your examples help, as b1 and b2 use commas that wrong way round -- you have them with that and not with which. As b1 and b2 are non-standard usage (or "wrong" in plain English), I'm not sure what point you were making. Sorry!

Sorry, Paul! What's the opposite of a "grey moment"? I have modified the post.

The point I was trying (badly) to make more clear to the original poster, is that whether the house is pink or not is unimportant there (without further information) but whether it is built on sand, IS important (as in my example). I just don't know how to use the fancy terms that you all know. I was attempting to put it in Vadim's (Layman's) terms.

[Paul Doherty]

OK Vadim, now your examples all make sense, but I don't think there is a difference. From your knowledge of the world you might assume that the sand made a difference, but the sentences do not say so, any more than the a1/a2 examples suggest that being pink made a difference. You are projecting your knowledge on to the grammar.

If you want to implicate the sand, you have to say something like "The house, because it was built on sand, washed away."

[Paul Doherty]

Try the traveller, who was gay, was attacked. Is there an implication there that it was a homophobic attack? Impossible to say from the grammar -- some people will think there is, some won't. It's about your world-view, not about the grammar. And the traveller that was gay was attacked doesn't clarify matters.

[goofy]

imo there is no historical or grammatical basis for this rule.

It was a concern which brought just employment enough. (Jane Austen, Emma, chapter 2)

However, she soon made out that she was in the pool of tears which she had wept when she was nine feet high. (Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, chapter 2)

He lived in chambers which had once belonged to his deceased partner. (Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol, Stave 1)

Buda-Pesth seems a wonderful place, from the glimpse which I got of it from the train and the little I could walk through the streets. (Bram Stoker, Dracula, chapter 1)

I think I can see a little into the springs and motives which being cunningly presented to me under various disguises (Herman Melville, Moby Dick, chapter 1)

and Mrs. Heathcliff leaning over the fire, diverting herself with burning a bundle of matches which had fallen from the chimney-piece as she restored the tea-canister to its place (Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights, chapter 2)

[Paul Doherty]

You and MWDEU aren't great believers in grammatical rules or usage guides, are you Goofy?

That very many usage guides -- as denounced by MWDEU -- have discussed such a rule surely indicates that one exists? Of course, like pretty much all "rules" of English, people (including prestigious authors) ignore it from time to time. But citing such examples gets us nowhere: for each example you cite, I can cite an opposing example.

There is a "rule" (a law in this case) which forbids driving at high speed: showing me a photo of a speeding driver does not disprove the existence of such a rule.

The point is, did most (reputable?) writers tend to follow such a rule? Speak to that, if you can. (For example, MWDEU mentions "Virginia McDavid's 1977 study", which sounds interesting.)

Finally, I note that no-one here has said the rule relies on a historical or grammatical justification. Rather it's a useful distinction to make, and if Benners he feels he needs a guide, it's as good as any.

[Paul Doherty]

I think the best advice to benners is this: many authorities suggest the defining/non-defining distinction that Geoff and others have explained here. But -- like so many rules -- it's not hard-and-fast: Dave M says "in general use, many people use both, rather haphazardly" and Goofy gives some examples of good writers breaking the supposed rule.

So, like almost all the "rules" we discuss here, it's really a guideline; follow it if you wish, but don't get too obsessive about it. Depart from it if it forces you into clumsy wording, and be wary of criticizing people who ignore it, or who are unaware of it.

[goofy]

Jul 17, 2008 2:50:54 GMT Paul Doherty said:

You and MWDEU aren't great believers in grammatical rules or usage guides, are you Goofy?

I don't know about believer. I'm all for informed usage advice. Of course this rule exists, but I don't think there's any justification for it.

The point of citing the examples is to show that writers do not follow this rule. Instead, they follow a different rule: use that with restrictive clauses, and use which with restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. It's not which that signals the nonrestrictive clause, it's the comma.

[Paul Doherty]

Jul 17, 2008 13:18:50 GMT @goofy said:

The point of citing the examples is to show that writers do not follow this rule.

Do not follow the rule sometimes; at other times they do follow it, I expect. And maybe other writers follow the rule always.

Where does any of that get us? If someone had alleged that famous writers always follow the rule, the example would disprove that. But no-one has alleged it!