# Comma after the conjunction That: restrictive/non-restrictive clause



## Englishmypassion

Hello Everyone,
In the following sentence, quoted from the Oxford dictionary, the comma after "that" sounds wrong to me as it changes the intended meaning and the sentence conveys a wrong meaning as it stands.

_"The general rule in British English is that*,* in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, which can replace that. _However, in non-restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves only to give additional information, that cannot be used:..." 



My analysis of the sentence as it stands

_The general rule in British English is that (in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described) "which" can replace "that."       Or

The general rule in British English is that — in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described—  "which" can replace "that."   _

In other words, in the existing sentence, "in restrictive relative clauses" is a parenthetical phrase and "where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described" is a parenthetical clause (a non-restrictive relative clause) referring to restrictive relative clauses. So the sentence primarily says that the general rule in British English is that _which_ can replace _that_, which is wrong: that's not probably the intended meaning_. _I think the intended meaning is as follows:_ The general rule in British English is that in restrictive relative clauses (where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described), "which" can replace "that." _To convey that intended meaning, the comma after "that" should be dropped. 

What do you think of the comma after _that_?


Thanks.
Emp


----------



## tunaafi

The comma is fine; it marks a slight pause in speech, as does the second comma in: _The general rule in British English is that, in restrictive relative clauses (where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described),  "which" can replace "that."   _'If the 'in restrictive relative clauses' were moved to the end of the sentence, we would not use a comma.  The clause I have placed in brackets is parenthetical, it can be omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. The 'in restrictive relative clauses' is not parenthetical.


----------



## Englishmypassion

tunaafi said:


> The comma is fine; it marks a slight pause in speech, as does the second comma in: _The general rule in British English is that, in restrictive relative clauses (where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described),  "which" can replace "that."  ... _The 'in restrictive relative clauses' is not parenthetical.



I beg to differ. The second comma, the comma after *described*/the bracketed part, is there to set off the non-restrictive relative clause beginning with "where." The comma after "that" and the one after "clauses" do make the phrase "in restrictive relative clauses_" _parenthetical, hence my objection to its use there. 

Thanks.


----------



## grassy

Englishmypassion said:


> So the sentence primarily says that the general rule in British English is that _which_ *can* replace _that_, which is wrong:


But it _can_, EMP, in some circumstances, and that's the whole point. I think you may be overanalyzing this.


tunaafi said:


> The comma is fine; it marks a slight pause in speech


I agree. I'd also add that it improves the overall readability of the sentence.
Having said that, I don't think no comma would be incorrect there: it's just a matter of personal preference.


----------



## Englishmypassion

grassy said:


> But it _can_, EMP, in some circumstances, and that's the whole point.



No, that's not the whole point or the general rule. The writer actually wants to say that the general rule in British English is that in restrictive relative clauses "which" can replace "that." That's the whole point of this thread.


----------



## PaulQ

My twopennorth:
"The general rule in British English is that*,* in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, which can replace that.

Greatest Simplification
"The general rule in British English is that *“*which” can replace “that”

Greater Detail
"The general rule in British English is that, in restrictive relative clauses, *“*which” can replace “that”.

Greatest Expression
"The general rule in British English is that*, *[whenever it[=”that”] is used] in restrictive relative clauses, {_i.e. those in which the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described_,} "which" can replace "that".


----------



## Englishmypassion

PaulQ said:


> Greatest Simplification
> "The general rule in British English is that *“*which” can replace “that”


But that's not the advice the dictionary actually wants to give. That's oversimplification caused by a wrongly inserted comma (after that) in the OP. 





PaulQ said:


> Greatest Expression
> "The general rule in British English is that*, *[whenever it[=”that”] is used] in restrictive relative clauses, {_i.e. those in which the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described_,} "which" can replace "that".



That's a different thing and doesn't help much here.


----------



## grassy

Englishmypassion said:


> The writer actually wants to say that the general rule in British English is that in restrictive relative clauses "which" can replace "that." That's the whole point of this thread.


Maybe the author wanted to say what he/she said and not what you think he/she should have said.


----------



## PaulQ

Englishmypassion said:


> My analysis of the sentence as it stands
> 
> _1. The general rule in British English is that (in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described) "which" can replace "that." Or
> 
> 2. The general rule in British English is that — in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described— "which" can replace "that." _


You seem to have replaced commas that indicate parentheses by brackets and dashes.


Englishmypassion said:


> That's a different thing and doesn't help much here.


At the moment, I am agreeing with Grassy, but what do you think that the author meant?


----------



## natkretep

I had a look at lexico (that | Definition of that by Lexico) again for the context. 

I think it's possible to see all that bit between 'in restrictive relative clauses' and 'described' can be seen as parenthetical. If you leave it out, the two sentences read well.


> The general rule in British English is that ... _which _can replace _that_. However, in non-restrictive relative clauses ... _that _cannot be used: _this book, which is set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers but not this book, that is set in the last century, is very popular with teenagers_.


The first sentence gives the general rule about the interchangeability of _which_ and _that. _And the second sentence gives a restriction. Perhaps it could have been expressed differently for greater clarity.


----------



## Loob

I agree with Emp that the comma after "that" is superfluous. It was probably used, as tunaafi says, because the writer wanted to indicate a pause.

Added. It would have been better if the writer had used sub-paragraphs:
_The general rule is that_​_- in restrictive clauses ..._​_- however, in non-restrictive clauses ..._​


----------



## Englishmypassion

PaulQ said:


> what do you think that the author meant?





Englishmypassion said:


> The writer actually wants to say that the general rule in British English is that in restrictive relative clauses "which" can replace "that."



I believe that because that's the correct rule. Thanks.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Thank you so much Nat and Loob, too.


----------



## PaulQ

The first "that" is a red-herring: it is optional and may be omitted. What follows are two relatives that are separated from the subject and complement:


----------



## Einstein

Oversimplification:

_The general rule in British English is that "which" can replace "that"._

Oversimplified because it suggests that we can make that substitution whenever we like, in whatever sentence. In order to state things correctly, we need to specify "in restrictive relative clauses" and this is therefore an essential part of the sentence, which I would not separate from the rest of the sentence with a comma. That's my preference; I'm not sure that the comma really changes the meaning.

I think some confusion may arise from the fact that we have one subordinate clause nestling inside another one:

_"The general rule in British English is that *[*in restrictive relative clauses *[*where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described*]]* "which" can replace "that"._ Obviously the double bracket is expressed by a single comma, which remains even after the removal of the comma after "that".


----------



## Englishmypassion

Einstein said:


> Oversimplification:
> 
> _The general rule in British English is that "which" can replace "that".
> 
> Oversimplified because it suggests that we can make that substitution whenever we like, in whatever sentence. In order to state things correctly, we need to specify "in restrictive relative clauses" and this is therefore an essential part of the sentence, which I would not separate from the rest of the sentence with a comma.  _



Thanks a lot.


----------



## Edinburgher

Englishmypassion said:


> I believe that because that's the correct rule. Thanks.


You seem to be saying that *the correct rule is that* commas should only be used around inserted phrases or clauses when they are parenthetical, and that they are only parenthetical when they add non-essential information. Things are not always so clear-cut, and you need to accept that this is a "soft and slow" rule (i.e. not hard and fast). 

If the insertion were much shorter, we would be more likely to omit the comma to which you are objecting.  It is there because of a different rule, namely to improve clarity somewhat. It is optional and may be omitted, but that doesn't mean it must be omitted.

Quoting from parenthetical - WordReference.com Dictionary of English
one of the definitions (of _parenthesis_) reads:


> a qualifying, explanatory, or appositive word, phrase, clause, or sentence that interrupts a syntactic construction without otherwise affecting it, having often a characteristic intonation and indicated in writing by commas, parentheses, or dashes, as in _William Smith—you must know him—is coming tonight._


It is possible to read too much into "without otherwise affecting it".  Even if you take "appositive" to imply "non-essential", there is still "qualifying", and there is no doubt (or is there?) that "_in restrictive relative clauses_" qualifies the statement being made about _"The general rule in British English_".

You presumably agree that "where ... described" is in apposition to "restrictive relative clauses" because it just tells you what it means, since you are not arguing about the second and third commas.  This is essentially a nested apposition that is part of the main insertion "in restrictive relative clauses", and it is mainly because of the length of the total insertion that the first comma helps to make the sentence structure clearer.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Einstein said:


> _"The general rule in British English is that *[*in restrictive relative clauses *[*where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described*]]* "which" can replace "that"._ Obviously the double bracket is expressed by a single comma, which remains even after the removal of the comma after "that".



Hmm, if you delete the comma after that, only a single bracket is left, which can be expressed clearly by a comma.


----------



## Einstein

By the way,





PaulQ said:


> "The general rule in British English is that *“*which” can replace “that”


I'm not comfortable with omitting "that" after "is" unless we replace it with a colon (and I don't like that solution much either).


----------



## Edinburgher

Einstein said:


> I'm not comfortable with omitting "that" after "is" unless we replace it with a colon (and I don't like that solution much either).


----------



## PaulQ

Einstein said:


> I'm not comfortable with omitting "that" after "is"


I can see that but I don't think it's wrong. That said, it is the comma that is in question.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Edinburgher said:


> You seem to be saying that *the correct rule is that* commas should only be used around inserted phrases or clauses when they are parenthetical...



No, they can be used for other purposes too. For example,



Englishmypassion said:


> In other words*,* in the existing sentence*,*...



Both the commas above have been used to mark pauses. But there shouldn't be any comma after "that" in the OP because that doesn't call for such a comma/pause.


----------



## Edinburgher

Englishmypassion said:


> Both the commas above have been used to mark pauses.


Not primarily.  I see this "in the existing sentence" as an apposition, and that is why the commas are there.  The pauses are also there because it's an apposition.  One might argue that the pauses are there because of the commas, not that the commas are there because of the pauses. 


> But there shouldn't be any comma after "that" in the OP because that doesn't call for such a pause/comma.


Actually, we naturally *would* make a pause after that "that", in order to mark the beginning of the long parenthetical phrase.
If you say that you can put in commas to mark pauses, then there you have the justification for that first comma.

By the way, where did you find your "rule" that says a comma is not called for there?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Edinburgher said:


> Actually, we naturally *would* make a pause after that "that", in order to mark the beginning of the long parenthetical phrase.



And my argument being the phrase after "that" should not be a parenthetical one.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Would you use a comma after "that" in the following sentence if it was not obvious that you were talking about a calendar year?
"The rule is that in a calendar year, you can take maximum 20 days' leave."
Thanks.


----------



## Einstein

Either no commas or two:

"The rule is that*,* in a calendar year*,* you can take maximum 20 days' leave."
"The rule is that in a calendar year you can take maximum 20 days' leave."

I prefer it without commas.


----------



## Edinburgher

Englishmypassion said:


> Would you use a comma after "that" in the following sentence


Yes, I would, because of the matching comma after "year".  I would use both commas or none.  It would be quite normal to speak the whole sentence without pause.

Cross-posted with Einstein, with whom I agree.


----------



## Edinburgher

Englishmypassion said:


> my argument being the phrase after "that" should not be a parenthetical one.


What do you mean by "should not"?  It either is or it isn't parenthetical.  Perhaps you mean it should not be regarded as parenthetical.
But I can't see how one can argue that it isn't.  It is an insertion which, depending on how you interpret it, is either purely incidental and only adds non-essential information (which is, I think, what you would call parenthetical), or it is essential in that it qualifies or limits the circumstances in which the general rule about when _which_ can replace _that_ applies (which, I think, is what we both believe the sentence means).  Despite this, I take the view that although the phrase is essential, I would nevertheless call it parenthetical.

The distinction between essential and non-essential insertions, as I understand it, is that non-essential insertions require commas to be present, but that essential insertions do not require them to be absent. For one they are mandatory, for the other they are optional. The rule is not the same as with defining and non-defining relative clauses, where the commas must be absent for the former and present for the latter.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Edinburgher said:


> What do you mean by "should not"?  It either is or it isn't parenthetical.  Perhaps you mean it should not be regarded as parenthetical.



Yes, it has been made parenthetical by inserting a comma after "that," but it should not have been. That's my argument. 



Edinburgher said:


> ... or it is essential in that it qualifies or limits the circumstances in which the general rule about when _which_ can replace _that_ applies



Yes, it's essential to the meaning. That's why I say it should not have been set off as a parenthetical phrase.


----------



## Edinburgher

Englishmypassion said:


> Yes, it has been made parenthetical by inserting a comma


That's not entirely accurate, because, as you have admitted, commas are also permissible to mark pauses.


> That's why I say it should not have been set off as a parenthetical phrase.


Then that is really the only point on which we differ.  For you only a non-essential phrase can be called parenthetical, for me an essential one can too.


----------



## PaulQ

Englishmypassion said:


> "The general rule in British English is that*,* in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, which can replace that.



In the sentence, the adjectival modifier “*in restrictive relative clauses*” has been displaced. Conventionally, displaced modifiers are off-set by commas.
_ 
The general rule in restrictive relative clauses _<- noun phrase showing "normal" word order: no commas.
_is 
that "which" can replace "that." _-> and no commas are required in that part of the sentence.
_ 
“, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described,” _is non-defining/restrictive: it merely additional information about “restrictive”: it therefore requires off-setting with commas. (Obviously the second comma does not appear.)


----------



## Englishmypassion

Would you say the following? 
"The writer says that*,* in ancient India, Sanskrit was spoken by millions of people."


----------



## Edinburgher

Your question is probably directed at Paul, but yes, I would.
I think Paul would too, on the basis of his explanation.  Here the modifier "in ancient India" can be thought of as displaced from its more natural position at the end of the sentence.


----------



## PaulQ

Englishmypassion said:


> Would you say the following?
> "The writer says that*,* in ancient India, Sanskrit was spoken by millions of people."



Edinburgher's ESP is in excellent form  - "Yes, I would."


----------



## Englishmypassion

Interesting. I wouldn't use a comma after "that" in that either.


----------



## Einstein

Englishmypassion said:


> Would you say the following?
> "The writer says that*,* in ancient India, Sanskrit was spoken by millions of people."


As in post #26, my answer is: either two commas or none.


----------



## PaulQ

Englishmypassion said:


> Interesting. I wouldn't use a comma after "that" in that either.


Punctuation is writing's attempt to duplicate the tones and pauses of speech. Speech is the attempt to convey, as clearly as possible, the mental images and links in your mind to someone else. The defining/non-defining word, phrase, or clause are spoken in different way from their defining counterparts.

The non-defining often boil down to interjections. They are grammatical but are words, phrases, or clauses not directly connected to the main idea of a sentence, i.e. asides, that, as such, are off-set by pauses.

You sentence "The writer says that*,* in ancient India, Sanskrit was spoken by millions of people." =
"The writer says that*,* in ancient India _[= and, by the way, I'm talking about ancient India here - not anywhere else]__*,*_ Sanskrit was spoken by millions of people."

If you have already been talking about spoken Sanskrit, (and this seems to be the default context) then
"The writer says that Sanskrit was spoken by millions of people in ancient India." "in ancient India" is a defining adjectival phrase and "people in ancient India" is a noun phrase. That noun phrase is part of the greater noun phrase of the agent of the passive, "millions of people in ancient India." (And "of people in ancient India" is a modifier.)

Excessive punctuation (be it theoretically necessary or not) is probably as bad as no punctuation. The problem arises when, as in your original example, a whole series of complex ideas compete for precedence within the sentence and commas are used to attempt this. The result is as we see - the subject and object/complement are separated and the attempt to convey, as clearly as possible, the mental images and links fails.


----------



## billj

I'd write it like this:

_The general rule in British English is that in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, "which" can replace "that." _

Minimum of punctuation, and easy to understand/digest.


----------



## Englishmypassion

billj said:


> I'd write it like this:
> 
> _The general rule in British English is that in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, "which" can replace "that." _



Thanks a lot. That's exactly what I suggested in the OP. 
Thanks, everyone.


----------



## Edinburgher

Hmm.  Hardly a minimum of punctuation.  You still have two commas and we can lose one more by simply moving the final clause back to after "is that":

_The general rule in British English is that "which" can replace "that" in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described._

The clumsy repetition of "relative clause" in the explanatory clause can be avoided by changing "where the relative clause serves" to "which are those that serve".


----------



## grassy

Englishmypassion said:


> Thanks a lot. That's exactly what I suggested in the OP.
> Thanks, everyone.



Try not to fall into the trap of confirmation bias, EMP. There are other opinions in this thread as well.


----------



## Loob

Englishmypassion said:


> Interesting. I wouldn't use a comma after "that" in that either.


Nor would I.


billj said:


> I'd write it like this:
> 
> _The general rule in British English is that in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, "which" can replace "that." _
> 
> Minimum of punctuation, and easy to understand/digest.


I agree.

General conclusion: people use commas differently?


----------

