# Restrictive versus non-restrictive - that/which



## Jocaste

Hi,

I am trying to master these clauses, but am a little confused.

Here is my specific sentence, "In his private life, he showed none of the acerbity which marred his later writings."

Should the "which" not be a "that", given that the acerbity constrains the sentence?

*I have checked out the many other threads related to this, but am still a little confused. 

Many thanks for any explanations.


----------



## JulianStuart

There are many threads on this issue, which you can find by typing "that which" in the search box.  The definition that you come to provides the following useful usage note: I agree with the part in red although some will insist on using only "that" for restricitve clauses (I think).  I use the comma as the main decider when I write, so I forget the precise rules others follow  



> *usage*: When is it correct to use *that* and when should you use *which*? The general rule is that, when introducing clauses that define or identify something (known as *restrictive relative clauses*), it is acceptable to use either *that* or *which*: _a book which aims to simplify scientific language_ or _a book that aims to simplify scientific language_. However, *which*, but never *that*, should be used to introduce clauses giving additional information (*non-restrictive relative clauses*): _the book, which costs £15, has sold a million copies_ not _the book, that costs £15, has sold a million copies_.



Does this help?


----------



## Jocaste

Hi Julian, thank you. So either of them would work here?

I was informed that only that could be used for "restrictive clauses" and anything else only led to confusion, but I am now seeing that this doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## lucas-sp

Apparently, the strong that/which differentiation (which should really be called the *that / , which* differentiation, because the poor comma got dragged into this somehow) is a rather new-ish phenomenon, and particularly associated with certain styles of journalistic editing in the US that began in the early 20th century. 

So I would say - use "that" in this sentence - but people outside of this tradition might not care so much. Definitely you *don't*​ want a comma, but some people would say to use either "that" or "which," whatever sounds better in your sentence.


----------



## Jocaste

lucas-sp said:


> Apparently, the strong that/which differentiation (which should really be called the *that / , which* differentiation, because the poor comma got dragged into this somehow) is a rather new-ish phenomenon, and particularly associated with certain styles of journalistic editing in the US that began in the early 20th century.
> 
> So I would say - use "that" in this sentence - but people outside of this tradition might not care so much. Definitely you *don't*​ want a comma, but some people would say to use either "that" or "which," whatever sounds better in your sentence.



Thank you Lucas. The sentence was actually penned by Bertrand Russell, who was no slouch at English himself; but looking at the sentence, and taking into account the "that" rule which I have been exposed to, I simply couldn't decide. It seems there is no hard and fast rule, you choose your own style.

Actually, in the above sentence, I notice that I wrote "..._the "that" rule *which* I have been exposed to_.."
It seems that my unconscious preference is for which.


----------



## lucas-sp

Jocaste said:


> It seems there is no hard and fast rule, you choose your own style.


Well, unless you're writing for the_ New York Times, _in which case your _editor_ will choose what kind of style you'll be using.

Russell wasn't a mid-century American author, though, so you can expect that this "rule" didn't apply to him. But it would, say, apply to an American philosopher writing about Russell for an American university press.


----------



## Jocaste

lucas-sp said:


> Well, unless you're writing for the_ New York Times, _in which case your _editor_ will choose what kind of style you'll be using.
> 
> Russell wasn't a mid-century American author, though, so you can expect that this "rule" didn't apply to him. But it would, say, apply to an American philosopher writing about Russell for an American university press.



That's interesting, thanks. Would the "that" restrictive style be preferred, on the whole, in the United States?


----------



## lucas-sp

Yes. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. This rule is particular to the US, and, although it is fairly recent, is also very well established and recommended by most American style manuals and grammar books.


----------



## Fictional

Can I use 'that' instead of 'which' in both- Restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.  I know it's essential to use 'that' in restrictive clauses, but can we use it in non-restrictive clauses?


----------



## bennymix

It doesn't usually work, in my opinion.


----------



## Parla

Please give us an example of the sentence in which you might want to do this, Fictional. We can't give you an answer without context.


----------



## natkretep

Mod note: Fictional's thread (beginning with post 9) has been merged with an earlier thread. Please read the posts above.

Yes, a sentence would be good. Remember as well that using _that_ only with a restrictive (defining) clause is particular to the US (post 8).


----------



## Fictional

The sentences are as follows:
*
I'm awaiting delivery of products which I have ordered from Amazon. 
I'm awaiting delivery of products that I have ordered from Amazon.
I'm awaiting delivery of products I have ordered from Amazon.

*I'm not sure, whether the first one is correct or the second one. I also want to know whether I can omit the relative pronoun and if I cannot, then what is the rule for omission of relative pronoun.


----------



## firee818

< This discussion has been added to a previous thread.  
Please scroll up and read from the top.
Cagey, moderator. >

Dear fellow members,

For Adjective clause, Are *'that'* strictly used for* restrictive clause *and '*which*' is strictly used for *non- restrictive clause?
*
Any tips to recognise which one to be used?


Are the following sentences grammatically correct and have the same meaning:-

1.1). The apples, *which* were rotten, were thrown away.
1.2). The apples *which *were rotten were thrown away.
1.3). The apples, *that *were rotten, were thrown away.
1.4). The apples *that *were rotten were thrown away.



Thank you very much.


----------



## owlman5

firee818 said:


> For Adjective clause, Are *'that'* strictly used for* restrictive clause *and '*which*' is strictly used for *non- restrictive clause?*


I don't think so, firee.  I believe that some speakers also use "which" for essential clauses.  As far as I know, I generally use "that" for essential (restrictive) clauses and "which" for nonessential (nonrestrictive) clauses.



firee818 said:


> 1.1). The apples, *which* were rotten, were thrown away.
> 1.2). The apples *which *were rotten were thrown away.
> 1.3). The apples, *that *were rotten, were thrown away.
> 1.4). The apples *that *were rotten were thrown away.


Sentences 1.1 and 1.3 tell me that all the apples were rotten and were thrown away.  Sentences 1.2 and 1.4 tell me that only the apples that were rotten (not all the apples) were thrown away.

If you'd like to read a good summary of what these clauses are and how to use them, here is a link to a source I found in "Grammar Bytes": The Adjective Clause


----------



## bennymix

I might add that many would consider the grammar or punctuation of 1.3 to be odd, if not defective.


----------



## owlman5

So you don't use "that" to introduce nonessential clauses, Benny?  If I do use "that" as firee did in 1.3, I don't do it intentionally or often.  With my American speech habits, I use "which" for nonessential clauses and "that" for essential clauses.


----------



## bennymix

I sometimes use 'which' for essential (defining), British style.   I don't use 'that' with non essential; the commas seem to make the problem more noticeable. 



owlman5 said:


> So you don't use "that" to introduce nonessential clauses, Benny?  If I do use "that" as firee did in 1.3, I don't do it intentionally or often.  With my American speech habits, I use "which" for nonessential clauses and "that" for essential clauses.


----------



## owlman5

Thank you.  I'd have a hard time understanding a "nonessential that" if I heard one in conversation.


----------



## Parla

1.1). The apples, *which* were rotten, were thrown away. 
1.2). The apples *which *were rotten were thrown away. 
1.3). The apples, *that *were rotten, were thrown away. 
1.4). The apples *that *were rotten were thrown away.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Parla,
This is for readers of the thread; no disrespect for your preferences.  

There is some issue regarding sentence 1.2, which Parla rejects.
In BE, but in AE too, this is not always the rule, not always demanded.

Allen, in _New Pocket Fowler's_ _Modern English Usag_e, 2008, p. 605, says, gives these examples:

_the pen that my father bought for me [_bennymix continuation_:  is made of gold.]
the pen that is over on the table [is made of gold.]_

"in these cases, the _that_ clause [which defines the pen being spoken about] 
normally follows on without a comma.  _Which_ can also be
used in these examples, but in conversational English, _that _is more usual.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Parla said:


> 1.1). The apples, *which* were rotten, were thrown away.
> 1.2). The apples *which *were rotten were thrown away.
> 1.3). The apples, *that *were rotten, were thrown away.
> 1.4). The apples *that *were rotten were thrown away.


BE reactions would be different, as would some AE ones, to judge from what has already been said in this thread.

Here are my reactions to these sentences (I'll leave Parla's ticks and crosses for comparison):

1.1). The apples, *which* were rotten, were thrown away.  - all the apples were rotten and all were thrown away.
1.2). The apples *which *were rotten were thrown away.  -  some apples, the rotten ones, were thrown away.
1.3). The apples, *that *were rotten, were thrown away.  - 
1.4). The apples *that *were rotten were thrown away.  - some apples, the rotten ones, were thrown away.


----------



## DonnyB

I would 'mark' those sentences in exactly the same way that TT has (post #22).  

The only one which really doesn't work for me is 1.3.


----------



## Saltie

<Saltie's thread has been merged with this thread. Nat, moderator>

Hi!
It's from a school test here. Students are supposed to choose between that and which:
1) I like festivals *which* celebrate a cultural tradition.
2) I like festivals *that* celebrate a cultural tradition.
I tend to think that 'which' is more formal, while 'that' is more colloquial. The answer my BrE book has for it is 'which', but MS Word (I've got AmE in it) tells me to use 'that'. So I wonder if it's about stylistics only, or if it varies depending on the variety of English we use?


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

The choice has nothing to do with formality. You use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause, and "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause.

Consider these two sentences:
_The cake that has chocolate frosting was made by Aunt Ruth.
The cake, which has chocolate frosting, was made by Aunt Ruth.
_
The two sentences do not mean the same thing.  The first one says that while there many be many cakes on the table,  the maker of the one cake with chocolate frosting was Aunt Ruth.

The second sentence does not suggest there are other cakes, and instead strongly suggests there is only one.  That cake was made by Aunt Ruth -- and it also happens to have chocolate frosting.

In your pair of sentences, using "which" suggests that you like all festivals, and that all of them celebrate a cultural tradition.  Using "that" changes the meaning: you do not like all festivals, but only those festivals focused on celebrating a cultural tradition.


----------



## sdgraham

Post #2 <now post 25 after the merge> is a brilliant discussion of predominant AE use.
Our British cousins do things a bit differently.
Nevertheless, it's not a matter of formality.


----------



## PaulQ

Saltie said:


> It's from a school test here. Students are supposed to choose between that and which:
> 1) I like festivals *which* celebrate a cultural tradition.
> 2) I like festivals *that* celebrate a cultural tradition.


If it helps, and if you have been accurate with copying the questions, 2) will be correct, because "which" is preceded by a comma in order to indicate parenthesis.


----------



## Loob

Saltie said:


> Hi!
> It's from a school test here. Students are supposed to choose between that and which:
> 1) I like festivals *which* celebrate a cultural tradition.
> 2) I like festivals *that* celebrate a cultural tradition.
> I tend to think that 'which' is more formal, while 'that' is more colloquial. The answer my BrE book has for it is 'which', but MS Word (I've got AmE in it) tells me to use 'that'. So I wonder if it's about stylistics only, or if it varies depending on the variety of English we use?


For this speaker of BrE:
- both are correct
- yes, (1) does feel slightly more formal than (2).

There have been many previous threads about AmE/BrE differences on this front.


----------



## Englishmypassion

I  agree with post 2 <now post 25>, but that's about AE usage. In BE, "which" is also used to introduce restrictive clauses, though "that" is more common, I think. But "that" being more common doesn't make "which" wrong in BE.


----------



## dojibear

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Consider these two sentences:
> _The cake that has chocolate frosting was made by Aunt Ruth.
> The cake, which has chocolate frosting, was made by Aunt Ruth_.



It is the addition of commas which changes the meaning in the way that post #2 describes. It is not using "which" or "that". To compare the meaning and usage of "which" and "that", you need to use identical no-comma sentences with both words.

I agree that (in AE) "that" is more common in the non-comma sentence and "which" is more common in the sentence with commas. But either word is correct in either sentence.



Saltie said:


> 1) I like festivals *which* celebrate a cultural tradition.
> 2) I like festivals *that* celebrate a cultural tradition.



To me both sentences are correct in AE, but "that" is more common in this sentence. But the book is about BE.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

_"I like festivals which/ that celebrate cultural traditions."_

I am sure I usually use 'that' in casual speech in defining clauses and I'd probably use 'that' in '_formal'_ speech and writing too, whatever 'formal' means these days. 
The only mistake is to use 'that' for a person instead of 'who', whether defining or non-defining.




> _The cake, which has chocolate frosting, was made by Aunt Ruth._


This is the sort of sentence used to explain the difference between defining and non-refining relative clauses.
They are mostly very unnatural.
_
'My aunt made the cake that/(which) has chocolate icing'.
_I would probably not bother with any relative and use a prepositional phrase instead.
_'My aunt made the cake with the chocolate icing.'_


----------



## Saltie

Many thanks to everyone!


----------



## Loob

Hermione Golightly said:


> The only mistake is to use 'that' for a person instead of 'who', whether defining or non-defining.


Interesting, HG: I would have no problem at all with "The man that I saw ...", "The woman that I spoke to..." etc.

Though I don't use 'that' - for people or things - in non-restrictive relative clauses.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Loob said:


> Interesting, HG: I would have no problem at all with "The man that I saw ...", "The woman that I spoke to..." etc.



Then you would be the one that got away.


----------



## Loob




----------



## wandle

Jocaste said:


> Should the "which" not be a "that", given that the acerbity constrains the sentence?


There is nothing wrong with the sentence as it stands:





> In his private life, he showed none of the acerbity which marred his later writings.


Post 25 well illustrates the difference in meaning between a defining (or restrictive) relative clause and a non-defining one.
However, I am afraid the following statement is not accurate:


GreenWhiteBlue said:


> You use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause, and "which" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause.


Usage shows that the relative pronouns are not confined to separate roles in this way. In particular, 'which' is regularly used to introduce defining (restrictive) clauses as well as non-defining ones. In the case of 'that', the OED says that nowadays its use with non-defining clauses is poetical or rhetorical.

Scroll and Codex is a page of descriptive factual writing by an American academic, James Grout, where he uses the relative 'which' in 25 clauses, of which six are defining ones and 19 non-defining. Here are the six defining (restrictive) clauses:


> - words _which the resistant hardness of bark made it almost impossible to set down_
> - it is the thing _upon which "the immortality of human beings depends"_
> - rolls _on which both sides had been written_
> - the length _to which the horizontal strips could be cut and still remain strong_
> - the only form _in which some classical works have been preserved_
> - cut into sheets_ which then could be sewn together_


It is not just academic writers who regularly use 'which' in this way:
From BrainyQuote, by Richard Bach:


> What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it.



From  Across the River and into the Trees, by Ernest Hemingway:


> A blind is any artifice you use to hide the shooter from that which he is attempting to shoot ...



Tom Wolfe on his new book, Back to Blood


> 'Miami is a melting pot in which none of the stones melt,’ Wolfe says.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Wandle, I agree with your post #36 (which agrees with my post above) in spirit, but I'm afraid you don't give the best of examples there, except 2 (the first and last in the first blue box), as "which" is preceded by a preposition in most of the examples, which makes it mandatory for the writer to either use "which" only or use the preposition at the end, which many people try to avoid.


----------



## wandle

Englishmypassion said:


> I'm afraid you don't give the best of examples there,


Those examples with a preposition are all thoroughly relevant, because the clauses are defining clauses.

The point is that it is not true to say that 'that' and 'which' are each limited to a single type of clause, either in American or in British usage.


----------



## JulianStuart

It’s the comma that counts in determining whether it is or is not a restrictive clause


----------



## wandle

Punctuation may be missing, or erroneous or determined by other factors. Context is the only sure guide.


----------



## JulianStuart

Well, if there’s a mistake, all bets are off. Context can only help in some situations.


----------



## wandle

To judge the writer's meaning, context is in general the reader's best guide; in judging which type of relative clause is being used, it is more reliable than any other, and should always be the final check.


----------



## JulianStuart

wandle said:


> To judge the writer's meaning, context is in general the reader's best guide; in judging which type of relative clause is being used, it is more reliable than any other, and should always be the final check.


This is the kind of situation I was imagining:
The car (which/that) is red is beautiful.  (There may or may not be a comma missing.)


----------



## wandle

JulianStuart said:


> The car (which/that) is red is beautiful.


That shows the importance of context (no such sentence would be uttered in a vacuum).


----------



## JulianStuart

Is there something beautiful you can see when you look out of the window?


----------



## Englishmypassion

wandle said:


> Those examples with a preposition are all thoroughly relevant, because the clauses are defining clauses.
> 
> The point is that it is not true to say that 'that' and 'which' are each limited to a single type of clause, either in American or in British usage.



But I thought nobody would doubt the fact that only the relative pronoun "which", not "that", could be preceded by a preposition.


----------



## wandle

Englishmypassion said:


> I thought nobody would doubt the fact ...


Learners can and will doubt anything (nobody is born with that knowledge).

Is it true that there is a different pronoun for each of the two types of relative clause?
Answer: No, as the examples in post 36 go to show.

Is it true that that idea is valid in American  usage as distinct from British?
Answer:  No again, as the examples in post 36 go to show.

Incorrect propositions are not much help to learners.


----------



## wandle

JulianStuart said:


> Is there something beautiful you can see when you look out of the window?


I would have expected that question to draw a definite answer such as, 'Yes, a red car' or 'No, nothing in particular'.


----------



## Forero

JulianStuart said:


> It’s the comma that counts in determining whether it is or is not a restrictive clause




This is the crux of the matter. Americans, of which I am one, use both _which_ and _that_ for both kinds of relative clauses, in speech and in writing. Even editors who claim otherwise do it.

This is true even if we exclude from consideration restrictive clauses that begin with a preposition and those that follow _that_ as in the Hemingway quote in #36 ("... to hide the shooter from that which he is attempting to shoot ...").

And the same comma rule applies to modifiers other than relative clauses (e.g. restrictive or nonrestrictive prepositional phrases).

Unfortunately there are sometimes reasons to include a comma just before a restrictive relative clause. Then only context can tell.

By the way, the comma in writing corresponds to a certain intonation and rhythm in speech which may or may not include a pause.

And, speaking of rhythm, leaving out the relative pronoun can help improve the cohesiveness of a noun phrase by speeding it up, and using _which_ can sometimes improve understanding by slowing things down, as in my "By the way ..." sentence. (with _that_, the relative clause would seem to modify "speech" instead of "a certain ...".)


----------



## JulianStuart

wandle said:


> I would have expected that question to draw a definite answer such as, 'Yes, a red car' or 'No, nothing in particular'.


It was just a helpful, talkative respondent


----------

