# this.that, these/those [BE]



## William Stein

I've been proofreading a lot of UK texts recently and I've noticed that Brits tend to use "this" much more frequently than "that", even when referring back to something in a previous sentence (where I was taught to use "that", not this). 

First, just to give an example of what I consider to be a correct usage of this:
to make reasonable efforts to promote compliance with this Code of Conduct [where "this" = "the present].

Here are examples of what I consider to be mistakes or at least dubious. I would change all the following instances of "this" and "these" to "that" and "those"(or "such"):

FWO has neither warehouses nor vehicles of its own and must therefore outsource *these [=> such/those] *services to suppliers.

Our sales department is responsible not only for making visits to new customers, but also for maintaining our existing customer contacts. We ask *these * * [=> such/those] *customers for their opinions about the service we provide them,

In the 1st and 3rd quarter of every year, the QM officer takes a file from every department. The officer uses these * [=> such/those] *files to check whether EN/ISO 9001 requirements and those of the present quality management manual are being observed.


For the sake of clarification, I was taught that "this" is for something new (this is my sister) or the "present" (this house is very nice; the purpose of this essay is...], whereas "that/those" should be used to refer back to something mentioned previously.

What do you think about that (this)? 
:


----------



## PaulQ

This might help: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2531320&p=12751291#post12751291 this -> these; that -> those


----------



## William Stein

PaulQ said:


> This might help: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2531320&p=12751291#post12751291 this -> these; that -> those



Thanks, that is relevant but it doesn't address my question of UK English. They seem to have a phobia of "that" in the UK, because they also use "which" in defining clauses "the man which lives over there" instead of "the man that/who lives over there", which I was taught is an outright mistake.


----------



## PaulQ

Look on it as the evolution of language. I will give you 100:1 in any currency that 99.9% of the population of the UK has not the faintest idea what a "defining clause" is but that hardly excuses "the man which lives over there"; it just sounds bad.

However, I have looked at your post and for better or worse, I find, applying my own rules at the link given, *these *to be correct.

_1. This [edit - and hence These] - is *the thing that (i) is being presently, or will be next, discussed/experienced,* (ii) the first thing or (iii) the nearest thing in space or time or (iv) the thing indicated.
_
FWO has neither warehouses nor vehicles of its own and must therefore outsource *these [=> such/those] services to suppliers.*

Our sales department is responsible not only for...to new customers, but also ... existing customer contacts. We ask *these [=> such/those] customers

* the QM officer takes a file from every department. The officer uses these *[=> such/those]**]files*


----------



## William Stein

I don't understand Rule 1: *1. This- is the thing that (i) is being presently, or will be next, discussed/experienced, (ii) the first thing or (iii) the nearest thing in space or time or (iv) the thing indicated.
**First of all, the thing that "is presently being discussed" is too broad and could encompass almost anything. For example, in these sentences, in which you acknowledged "that" to be correct, the red bus, the shopping list and what A said are all "being presently discussed".
*(i) “This bus is green but that one over there is red.
(ii) [Points to one sheet of paper] “This is the plan.” [points to another sheet of paper] “That is my shopping list.”
(iii) A: [points at map] “So, we will go to this town?” B: “Yes, weren’t you listening? That is what I said.”

Secondly, if the first thing or nearest thing in space or time means that the immediate antecedent should always take "which", then there would no room for "that". Consider this case:
I'm tired. That said, I could have a few more beers"
According to your rule, it should be "this said", which is definitely incorrect.


----------



## PaulQ

William Stein said:


> I don't understand Rule 1:


Oh. How might I make it clearer?



> Secondly, if the first thing or nearest thing in space or time means that the immediate antecedent should always take "which", then there would no room for "that". Consider this case:
> I'm tired. That said, I could have a few more beers"
> According to your rule, it should be "this said", which is definitely incorrect.


I don't think and idiom alters much. How would you see, "I'm tired. This having been said, I might have a few more beers."

You realise that there are several functions of "that/this"? e.g. "The dog *that *bit *that *child has been caught and *that *is the case."


----------



## William Stein

If you read my post you'll see that the problem with your rule is that you can always justify using "this" and never "that", and that the criterion of "presently being discussed" also applies to  all the cases in which you acknowledge "that" to be correct. Did you make up that rule yourself or did you find it in a reference grammar?
Normal English is "That said". "This having been said" is extremely artificial (I'm sure the poor guy would get thrown out of the bar for saying it .
)


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> Thanks, that is relevant but it doesn't address my question of UK English. They seem to have a phobia of "that" in the UK, because they also use "which" in defining clauses "the man which lives over there" instead of "the man that/who lives over there", which I was taught is an outright mistake.



 I had never heard of this "rule" for defining (restrictive) clauses until I moved from the UK to the US.  I think this is a US thing.  My deciding factor is the presence or absence of a comma(s) in the written form (or the presence or absence of a pause  in spoken form).  The choice of which vs. that is secondary.  (There are some in the US who also feel the comma (s) denotes a non-restrictive.)

You have chosen a poor example - no native English speaker says "the man which...", not even in Olde England 

The lawnmower is the most frequent illustration I think 

The lawnmower*,* which/that is in the back of the truck*,* is broken.
The lawnmower which/that is in the back of the truck is broken.

I remain ambivalent about the choice of which/that, but the first is the non-restrictive and the second is restrictive.  In the first, I'd probably plump for which in the following :"The lawnmower*,* which, by the way, is in the back of the truck*,* is broken. 

Nonetheless, there are definite differences between AmE and BrE and you have found one.  I believe there are people who make careers out of taking texts from one and making the changes so they are "acceptable" in the other.


----------



## PaulQ

William Stein said:


> If you read my post you'll see that the problem with your rule is that you can always justify using "this" and never "that", and that the criterion of "presently being discussed" also applies to  all the cases in which you acknowledge "that" to be correct. Did you make up that rule yourself or did you find it in a reference grammar?


Perhaps you could write a small summary of the way you see the use of this/that and we could compare notes?


> Normal English is "That said". "This having been said" is extremely artificial (I'm sure the poor guy would get thrown out of the bar for saying it .
> )


Well, that's 822,000 examples, and thus people, on Google who would also be thrown out of the bar. We could buy a bar of our own.


----------



## William Stein

Once again, you don't seem to be reading any of my posts. I wrote a small summary already in my initial question.

You can probably find 822,000 pedants who might write (rarely speak, I assume) "this having been said" out of some weird "that-o-phobia", but that really is only a small fraction of 4,340,000,000 (over 4 billion) for "that said":


 




_that said_ - Wiktionary en.wiktionary.org/wiki/*that_said*Cached - SimilarShareShared on Google+. View the post.

You +1'd this publicly. Undo
_that said_. Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Jump to: navigation, search *...* [edit] Etymology. A ellipsis of "that having been  _said_" or "that being _said_"

Anyway, as I said, there seems to be some hang-up about using "that" in the UK but personally I think "this" and "that" provide a very useful distinction when used properly instead of always repeating "this" like some kind of automatic tic even when it refers to things already mentioned.


----------



## PaulQ

William Stein said:


> Once again, you don't seem to be reading any of my posts.


To be frank, I find some of them a little confused - but that is probably my fault.





> I wrote a small summary already in my initial question.


Well, that's hardly a set of guidance notes is it? I was rather hoping you could share your point of view in a little more detailed manner. I for one would be interested, and I'm sure it would help others.





> You can probably find 822,000 pedants


Ah, you are acquainted with them...





> Anyway, as I said, there seems to be some hang-up about using "that" in the UK


How do you know it is not you who have the hang-up? 





> but personally I think "this" and "that" provide a very useful distinction when used properly instead of always repeating "this" like some kind of automatic tic even when it refers to things already mentioned.


I think this is a start to your essay, but I was expecting something a little more formal.


----------



## William Stein

JulianStuart said:


> I had never heard of this "rule" for defining (restrictive) clauses until I moved from the UK to the US.  I think this is a US thing.
> Nonetheless, there are definite differences between AmE and BrE and you have found one.  I believe there are people who make careers out of taking texts from one and making the changes so they are "acceptable" in the other.



The distinction between defining/non-defining clauses and that/which exists in the UK, too. Look what Fowler had to say in 1908 (The King's English):
 This view [of a defining clause] is confirmed, as we shall see, both by the use of 'that' (not 'which') and by the absence of a comma before it. (http://www.bartleby.com/116/204.html).

The English tend to ignore the distinction and use "which" all the time now, even in defining clauses, and it's even worse in EU documents for some reason. Another thing about EU docs is that a lot of the authors are German, Scandinavian or  French and they always use "this" instead of "that" when they speak English.


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> Anyway, as I said, there seems to be some hang-up about using "that" in the UK but personally I think "this" and "that" provide a very useful distinction when used properly instead of always repeating "this" like some kind of automatic tic even when it refers to things already mentioned.



I have to say I don't think calling it a "hang-up" is very helpful.  It's a bit like saying BrE is psychologically defective and AmE is healthy!  If you wish to turn a text employing BrE usage into a form for publication for an AmE market/audience, feel free, but just acknowledge that they are different. (That wiki link does not address that/which!)


----------



## William Stein

JulianStuart said:


> I have to say I don't think calling it a "hang-up" is very helpful.  It's a bit like saying BrE is psychologically defective and AmE is healthy!  If you wish to turn a text employing BrE usage into a form for publication for an AmE market/audience, feel free, but just acknowledge that they are different. (That wiki lionk does not address that/which!)



It's not a question of being psychologically defective, but it seems to me like a completely arbitrary phobia that you find among foreigners who speak English (even though you guys invented the language, of course). For example, the French and Germans often learn that "I got to go" is wrong (it should be "I've got to go', of course), so they universally condemn the word "get" as inferior in all contexts, which is absolutely ridiculous. I had a French friend in Paris who claimed that "which" is superior to "that" and I'm sure it's some nonsense he learned in school. The same is true of "like". They learn that Californians abuse "like" in sentences, like, you know, like this, so they universally condemn the word "like" in all contexts. I think 'this" and "that" is a useful distinction, because, as I wrote in my first post: "this" should be used  for something new (this is my sister, this is my first time in NYC) or the "present" (this house is very nice; the purpose of this essay is...], whereas "that/those" should be used to refer back to something mentioned previously. That is consistent with the basic "deictic" functions of "this" and "that". "This" points to something close at hand and present and "that" refers to something distant or absent.


----------



## PaulQ

William Stein said:


> as I wrote in my first post: "this" should be used for something new (this is my sister, this is my first time in NYC) or the "present" (this house is very nice; the purpose of this essay is...], whereas "that/those" should be used to refer back to something mentioned previously. That is consistent with the basic "deictic" functions of "this" and "that". "This" points to something close at hand and present and "that" refers to something distant or absent.


Gosh! You could have been copying my very words!





PaulQ said:


> 1. This- is the thing that (i) is being presently, or will be next, discussed/experienced, (ii) the first thing or (iii) the nearest thing in space or time or (iv) the thing indicated.
> 
> 
> 2. That is the thing that (i) has been discussed/experienced, (ii) the next and subsequent things, (iii) a more distant object in space or time (iv) a second or subsequent thing indicated.


----------



## William Stein

At the risk of repeating myself:
*First of all, the thing that "is presently being discussed" is too broad and could encompass almost anything. For example, in these sentences, in which you acknowledged "that" to be correct, the red bus, the shopping list and what A said are all "being presently discussed".
(i) “This bus is green but that one over there is red.
(ii) [Points to one sheet of paper] “This is the plan.” [points to another sheet of paper] “That is my shopping list.”
(iii) A: [points at map] “So, we will go to this town?” B: “Yes, weren’t you listening? That is what I said.”
*


----------



## PaulQ

"Too broad"? Is that it? Aren't you going to give your own version? And are you not the one (I think you are) who wrote





> as I wrote in my first post: "this" should be used for something new (this is my sister, this is my first time in NYC) or the "*present*" (this house is very nice; the purpose of this essay is...]


Do I see the word "present" there? Yet this is not 


> *too broad and could encompass almost anything.*


*?
*Anyway, there you are complaining, let's have some action - where's your guide?


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> ... it seems to me like a completely arbitrary phobia that you find among foreigners who speak English


It's not uncommon for people to have arbitrary phobias of things that are different from/to/than what they are used to .  This thread topic might be a case in point.

It is quite possible that the rules one can extract from the way UK speakers use this/that etc. are different from those one might extract from the way US speakers speak.  Any differences would seem "arbitrary" to one from the other camp!


----------



## William Stein

PaulQ said:


> "Too broad"? Is that it? Aren't you going to give your own version? And are you not the one (I think you are) who wroteDo I see the word "present" there? Yet this is not *?
> *Anyway, there you are complaining, let's have some action - where's your guide?



The "present" does not mean the "present" in the general temporal sense but "the present essay", for example, which is not broad at all but highly specific, much more so than "this" or "that", which is why  it's used as in contracts. "The present contract" can only mean the contract at issue, whereas "this contract" or "that contract" could be confused with other contracts. 
You do not respond to any of my specific criticisms about your rule (and I can understand why): it  doesn't distinguish anything but is only good for trying to justify "this" in every conceivable context. I am not "complaining", I'm just telling you that I don't find that rule helpful at all  in choosing between that and which. As to my own guide, I have a lot of work to do and am not prepared to write a grammatical disquisition at the moment, but as I said (God knows how many times now), I think "this should be reserved to introducing new things whereas "that" should be used for THINGS ALREADY MENTIONED (see post 1)


----------



## PaulQ

William Stein said:


> The "present" does not mean the "present" in the general temporal sense but "the present essay", for example, which is not broad at all but highly specific,


Oh... I'm with you, you mean  as I wrote in 





> 1. This- is the thing that (i) is being presently, or will be next, discussed/experienced, (ii) the first thing or (iii)* the nearest thing in space or time [edit: e.g. a house or an essay] *or (iv) *the thing indicated*.*[edit: e.g. a house or an essay] *





> As to my own guide, I have a lot of work to do and am not prepared to write a grammatical disquisition at the moment,


Then you are not going to tell us why you think as you do; but you complain that many people don't know how to handle this and that. You could help them when you have some free time. 


> but as I said (God knows how many times now), I think "this should be reserved to introducing new things


(shouldn't that be reserved "for"?) How does that differ from 





> This- is the thing that (i) is being presently, ... discussed/experienced,


?


> whereas "that" should be used for THINGS ALREADY MENTIONED (see post 1)


I thought I wrote that





> 2. *That *is the thing that (i) *has been discussed/experienced*,


See, I did! 

So what's it all about then?


----------



## lucas-sp

William Stein said:


> FWO has neither warehouses nor vehicles of its own and must therefore outsource *these [=> such/those] *services to suppliers.
> 
> Our sales department is responsible not only for making visits to new customers, but also for maintaining our existing customer contacts. We ask *these * * [=> such/those] *customers for their opinions about the service we provide them,
> 
> In the 1st and 3rd quarter of every year, the QM officer takes a file from every department. The officer uses these * [=> such/those] *files to check whether EN/ISO 9001 requirements and those of the present quality management manual are being observed.


Out of these examples, this red-blooded American would only object to the first one. Those second two sentences feel acceptable with either "these" or "those."

The first one of these examples feels odd to me because "these" services aren't ones that the company does, so they aren't present for the company in the same way that the customers or the files are in the next two examples. They feel like "other" services, so I would prefer "those" services.

Possibly the last one sounds a little talky, as if you're giving a guided tour and actively gesturing to the files in real time. I could be convinced to prefer "those" in that sentence.

I was sort-of with you in your original post: perhaps BE does favor "this/these." But that seems more like a cultural distinction (the language considers more things to be "closer" or "more present" to the act of speaking/writing) than a grammatical error. The fundamental difference between "this/these" and "that/those" seems to be the same in both BE and AE; what speakers may consider to be the appropriate word would depend on how they apply that criterion to a particular case.


----------



## William Stein

The "present thing" is NOT the nearest thing in time or space but the "thing itself". For example, "the present sentence" does not mean any sentence that happens to be in the neighborhood but  this very sentence and not the past or future sentences. That [note that I do not say "This" because I'm referring back to a previous matter]  is completely opposed to what you call "being presently discussed" which can include anything in any previous sentences so that "which" is always the appropriate pronoun. 
We seem to have very different notions of intellectual argument. If I don't think a rule is logical and therefore criticize it, it's a free country. That is not "complaining".


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> If I don't think a rule is logical and therefore criticize it, it's a free country. That is not "complaining".



So "hang-up" and "irrational phobia" are not "complaining" words???


----------



## William Stein

They may be negative words but I really don't like it and it gets on my nerves. If you want to call that complaining, go ahead, that's legal, too!


----------



## William Stein

lucas-sp said:


> The fundamental difference between "this/these" and "that/those" seems to be the same in both BE and AE; what speakers may consider to be the appropriate word would depend on how they apply that criterion to a particular case.



You might not have as much exposure to UK and "EU" English as I do, but right now I'm proofing a text in which "that" is simply not in the guy's vocabulary! He just always says "which", as a tic, even when referring back to remote events:

Regarding the client base, it should be underlined that the firm has always honoured the principle of not following companies which compete with each other: in some cases, *this *meant giving up business opportunities, but there are values ​​ which take precedence even over business.

When he graduated in accountancy, his first job was certainly nothing new, but nor was it a problem: he had already been working, so to speak, since the beginning. *This* was in 1959, and after his studies, the young accountant was afraid, that’s right, afraid, of having to work for a bank, since he was well aware that it was not for him. 

etc, etc., ad infinitum (and ad nauseam) with never a "that" in sight.


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> They may be negative words but I really don't like it and it gets on my nerves. If you want to call that complaining, go ahead, that's legal, too!



You can find many Americanisms that infuriate UK speakers (and some US speakers too!) with pulses rising, cringing, shivering with annoyance, shuddering, disgust, teeth set on edge, (and that's just in the first 25 of the 50 quoted - or should I say _this is just in the first 25_ - I find either word fits harmoniously here, but that's probably my UK roots). There are some who welcome the "good" ones (or even the "logical" ones!).   Not only that, some of the most common "peeves" about the cited "Americanisms" were about expressions {that/which} originated in Britain !

The tide comes and goes, though, as Britishisms "slip into American".  It took me a little while after moving from the UK to N. America to stop moaning about how badly the language was being mutilated. I calmed down when I accepted that the two versions of English are just different and _there's no point in getting annoyed or trying to reverse things. Not logical, captain._ It is what it is.


----------



## William Stein

I didn't want to turn this into another "two nations divided by a common language" diatribe, I basically just wanted confirmation that the "that-o-phobia" syndrome really is a UK thing. I'm a professional translator and I'm used to it when the French, Spaniards, Germans, Italians and Portuguese say "this" all the time instead of that, but I only figured out recently that they do the same thing in the UK now! Anyway, I'll just ignore it when I proof if that's what people find acceptable (but it's really too bad because this/that and that/which could provide an important distinction if used correctly, as is recognised by Fowler, too).


----------



## Wordsmyth

There is NO "that-o-phobia"! I don't know a single BrE speaker who cringes in fear, or breaks out in a psychosomatic rash, or even loses his appetite, when confronted with "that" — nor indeed who would think of correcting "that" to "this" in an AmE text. It's simply that the 'rule' concerning _this/that_ is narrower in American usage, broader in British usage. (Some of Julian's and Paul's points allude to this).

There are occasions when BrE uses the distinction in exactly the same way as AmE: "This pencil (in my hand), that pencil (over there on the table)". There are other occasions where no distinction is needed, where either "this" or "that" can mean "the thing we know I'm talking about"; then BrE speakers sometimes use the two interchangeably.

There are also occasions where "this" can be used to good effect, even when referring back to something already said. The use of "this" to denote 'the nearest' isn't restricted to time and space; it can also refer to 'the most recently mentioned thing'. Consider my first paragraph: if the parenthesis had been "... allude to that", it might have referred to any of the preceding elements of the sentence (of which there are at least half a dozen). However, "... allude to this" refers to the last thing I wrote ("narrower ... broader"). 

Ws


----------



## William Stein

Wordsmyth said:


> There is NO "that-o-phobia"! It's simply that the 'rule' concerning _this/that_ is narrower in American usage, broader in British usage.



I see why you use "rule" in quotation marks because there are no well-defined rules as far as I can tell. That "rule" according to which anything presently discussed should be "this" rather than "that" leads to the absurd result that you would have to use "which" 100% of the time because whenever you refer to anything, no matter how remote, it is suddenly being "presently discussed" and would have to take "this"! .



Wordsmyth said:


> There are occasions when BrE uses the distinction in exactly the same way as AmE: "This pencil (in my hand), that pencil (over there on the table)". There are other occasions where no distinction is needed, where either "this" or "that" can mean "the thing we know I'm talking about"; then BrE speakers sometimes use the two interchangeably.



I was thinking last night that when one uses "that" it signals that one is referring to a past statement or complete idea whereas "this" is part of a present development of a thought (According to this line of thought, we should never...). The tendency to constantly use "this" might be a way of "never dropping the ball", i.e., never admitting that you have finished one part of your discourse so that it would an appropriate moment for somebody else to interrupt.


----------



## PaulQ

William Stein said:


> You might not have as much exposure to UK and "EU" English as I do, but right now I'm proofing a text in which "that" is simply not in the guy's vocabulary! He just always says "which", as a tic, even when referring back to remote events:


So in basic terms, you are a proofreader who complains that he has to proofread?

Don't get me wrong, I can see the advantage of an author writing English that is perfect, whoever reads it, and yet who sends it to a proofreader who has to do no work, but collects a fee and returns it.


----------



## William Stein

PaulQ said:


> So in basic terms, you are a proofreader who complains that he has to proofread?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I can see the advantage of an author writing English that is perfect, whoever reads it, and yet who sends it to a proofreader who has to do no work, but collects a fee and returns it.



Just so there that is no misunderstanding 1) I am generally a translator, not a proofreader, 2) when I proofread, I would much rather proof a well-written text that requires little effort than mangled gibberish that I could translate from scratch faster than correct and, last but not least 3) THREE CHEERS FOR COMPLAINING, RAH, RAH, RAH!


----------



## Wordsmyth

William Stein said:


> _[...]_ That "rule" according to which anything presently discussed should be "which" rather than "that" leads to the absurd result that you would have to use "which" 100% of the time because whenever you refer to anything, no matter how remote, it is suddenly being "presently discussed" and would have to take "this"! . _[...] _


 This thread isn't about _which_. It's about _this/that_.


William Stein said:


> _[...] _I was thinking last night that when one uses "that" it signals that one is referring to a past statement or complete idea whereas "this" is part of a present development of a thought (According to this line of thought, we should never...). The tendency to constantly use "this" might be a way of "never dropping the ball", i.e., never admitting that you have finished one part of your discourse so that it would an appropriate moment for somebody else to interrupt.


 A colourful theory, though I can't imagine anyone being put off interrupting in that way: "Hey, that guy just said "this", so I'd better not interrupt him" ). But don't get too fixated on a supposed constant use of "this" — both "this" and "that" are alive and well (even in BrE).

Ws


----------



## William Stein

You're right, I meant "this rather than that" not "which rather than that" (that will teach me to try to write comments while working!). Anywway, I corrected that post so it should make more sense now.

By "that-o-phobia"  I don't mean that people literally cringe in fear before the "tha*" word (wouldn't want to wound anybody's sensibilities). I used it more in the sense of hydrophilic versus hydrophobic in reference to chains of DNA, which tend to be structured by seeking or fleeing from water (and no, that's no comment on bathing, either, although they do say that Oxford dons are hydrophobic in that respect, too).


----------



## Loob

I've only just read this thread.  It's funny, I had the impression that I'd seen AmE-speakers happily using "this" in situations where I would tend to prefer "that".

Which all goes to prove - nothing at all.  

I suspect it boils down to individual preferences and/or the desire to make something more/less immediate.

(I'm sure I've seen more than one previous thread on this (_that?_) - I'll see if I can find them.)


----------



## William Stein

Loob said:


> I've only just read this thread.  It's funny, I had the impression that I'd seen AmE-speakers happily using "this" in situations where I would tend to prefer "that".
> 
> Which all goes to prove - nothing at all.
> 
> I suspect it boils down to individual preferences and/or the desire to make something more/less immediate.
> 
> (I'm sure I've seen previous threads on this (_that?_) - I'll see if I can find them.)



I'm not a super gung-ho American since I've been an ex-pat almost half my life now, and I generally like British English (not to such an extent that I throw in British slang or anything), but I always thought  that it was a typical mistake of foreign (particularly French and German) speakers to use "this" all the time instead of that, so you can understand my shock and dismay (trauma and near-death experience) when I found out that Brits do it themselves!


----------



## panjandrum

I've just found this thread too, and I regret that I didn't read all of the preceding posts in detail.
A couple of observations from my quick scan ...
There are many BE folk who distinguish carefully between which and that (on the pattern described by Fowler).  Previous threads about that which cover the topic expansively.
I'm not sure that patterns of usage of relative pronouns is the same topic as the choice between these and those.

Referring to the specific points made in post #1 about these rather than those, I am sure that I would use "these" in all the examples, because there is no need to introduce a more distant "those".
In all three examples only one set of things has been mentioned and that set of things is the current topic of the sentence.


----------



## Loob

William Stein said:


> I'm not a super gung-ho American since  I've been an ex-pat almost half my life now, and I generally like  British English (not to such an extent that I throw in British slang or  anything), but I always thought  that it was a typical mistake of  foreign (particularly French and German) speakers to use "this" all the  time instead of that, so you can understand my shock and dismay (trauma  and near-death experience) when I found out that Brits do it  themselves!


Well, I can certainly understand that you might feel dismayed, William.  But I'm not sure that it's as easy as all that to determine criteria for when "this" is better than "that" - or vice versa.  And as I said, my own impression, prior to this thread, was that AmE-speakers often used "this" where I, as a BrE-speaker, would tend to use "that".

I hope you recover from your near-death experiences!

EDIT: cross-posted with panj.  I'm now off to re-read post 1....


----------



## William Stein

panjandrum said:


> I've just found this thread too, and I regret that I didn't read all of the preceding posts in detail.
> Referring to the specific points made in post #1 about these rather than those, I am sure that I would use "these" in all the examples, because there is no need to introduce a more distant "those".
> In all three examples only one set of things has been mentioned and that set of things is the current topic of the sentence.



1) I don't understand why you say the set of things has not been mentioned (the proof is that you can't possibly understand any of those references without reading what comes before) :
FWO has neither*** warehouses nor vehicles*** of its own and must therefore outsource *these [=> such/those] services to suppliers.
Here I would prefer "those services (transport/warehousing services)" because the prenoun refers back to warehouses/vehicles, which have already been mentioned (the font is stuck on bold for some reason, don't think I'm "screaming"!).
*Our sales department is responsible not only for making visits to new customers, but also for maintaining our existing customer contacts. We ask *these [=> such/those] customers for their opinions about the service we provide them.
Again, I would "prefer "those customers" because it definitely refers back to the customers mentioned in the first sentence.
*In the 1st and 3rd quarter of every year, the QM officer takes a file from every department. The officer uses these *[=> such/those] files to check whether EN/ISO 9001 requirements and those of the present quality management manual are being observed.
Again "those files" should be used because it clearly refers back to the filesmentioned in the first sentence.

2) The "current topic" criterion is extremely slippery becase anything you refer back to, no matter how remote, necessarily becomes the "current topic" and should take "this" according to that rule (and never "that", which is absurd if you ask me).*


----------



## PaulQ

The "current topic" criterion is not the only one:

[Man to tree-feller both standing next to a cherry tree] "I want you to cut down *this *tree but I want you to lop off just the lower branches of [points to a fir tree 50 yards away] *that *tree."
T-F: "So, If I understand you correctly, *that *tree remains standing?" [points at fir tree] *(current topic but further away)*
Man: "Yes."
T-F: "OK. Does your father know about *this *tree Master Washington?" (Back to a topic that has past, but is nearer the speaker.)


----------



## Loob

Looking back at post 1, it seems to me that the problem lies with:





William Stein said:


> I was taught that "this" is for something new (this is my sister) or the "present" (this house is very nice; the purpose of this essay is...], whereas "that/those" should be used to refer back to something mentioned previously.


That doesn't seem to me to be a particularly helpful criterion for deciding between "this" and "that": I'd have thought the distinction was more to do with "immediacy" versus "distance"....


----------



## William Stein

PaulQ said:


> The "current topic" criterion is not the only one:
> 
> [Man to tree-feller both standing next to a cherry tree] "I want you to cut down *this *tree but I want you to lop off just the lower branches of [points to a fir tree 50 yards away] *that *tree."
> T-F: "So, If I understand you correctly, *that *tree remains standing?" [points at fir tree] *(current topic but further away)*
> Man: "Yes."
> T-F: "OK. Does your father know about *this *tree Master Washington?" (Back to a topic that has past, but is nearer the speaker.)


I agree with the proximity/distance criterion entirely but I don't think "current topic" works at all because anything you refer to becomes the "current topic" (note that both trees are the current topic, for example).


----------



## PaulQ

At one stage in the conversation, the fir tree was the current topic but referred to as *that *- mainly because the proximity rule took preference.


----------



## William Stein

Loob said:


> Looking back at post 1, it seems to me that the problem lies with:That doesn't seem to me to be a particularly helpful criterion for deciding between "this" and "that": I'd have thought the distinction was more to do with "immediacy" versus "distance"....



Well the "first time" criterion is obviously helpful. Imagine this test question for somebody who's learning English, for example. 
[This/That] is the first I've been to New York so I didn't know it would be so cold". 
The "first time" criterion clearly determines the choice of "This".

"Immediacy" doesn't help much from my point of view. For example, imagine this test question, again for beginners:
It's so damn cold. [That/This] is what drives me crazy about this place.
The antecedent (cold) is very immediate but I would still use "that", not "this". At the very least it's unclear.


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> I'm not a super gung-ho American since I've been an ex-pat almost half my life now, and I generally like British English (not to such an extent that I throw in British slang or anything), but I always thought  that it was a typical mistake of foreign (particularly French and German) speakers to use "this" all the time instead of that, so you can understand my shock and dismay (trauma and near-death experience) when I found out that Brits do it themselves!



What I take from this nick in the space-time continuum is that those particular  foreign speakers learnt their English from UK English speakers, rather than from AmE speakers, and we return to the difference between the two forms.

Conversely, I'm sure the UK speakers did not learn it from modern-day French and German learners.


----------



## Loob

JulianStuart said:


> ... and we return to the difference between the two forms.


Seriously, though, Julian - and you're better placed than most of us to know! - do you really see a difference between BrE and AmE in the use of "this" and "that"?

If anything, I'd have thought (and I know I've - boringly - said this at least twice before) that AmE is more inclined to use "this" in situations where BrE would use "that"....


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> Seriously, though, Julian - and you're better placed than most of us to know! - do you really see a difference between BrE and AmE in the use of "this" and "that"?
> 
> If anything, I'd have thought (and I know I've - boringly - said this at least twice before) that AmE is more inclined to use "this" in situations where BrE would use "that"....



Until the issue came up in this thread, I had not noticed any difference between 1) the BrE  of my time in the UK (1st 25 years) and 2) the AmE since I moved to the US.  I did learn of the strict rule (word omitted) I mentioned earlier that some (although not all) AmE speakers/editors/proofreaders go by - the "that/which rule concerning (non)restrictive clauses" and the adamant nature of the comments (i.e., the strictness which some apply) brought me up short :- I go by commas or not.  On the other hand, I haven't noticed any unusual instances of _this_ or _that_  where I would have expected the other and the switch caused confusion - or even where I had used one and the avid proofreader had insisted I change it (and I wrote hundreds of quite long documents that were all proofread by this particular person  ).  

I'm still not sure of the issue here. 

All I could say is that if one word was used and it caused confusion or ambiguity, then that was the wrong choice.  

Someone will need to state the "rule" that we Europeans break in succinct, simple and easily understandable terms for me to start observing and report back


----------



## William Stein

Here's my "rule" for demonstrative pronouns used to start sentences/clauses (maybe that's called "conjunctive", I'm not sure). These rules [I use "these" because they refer to something new that I haven't presented yet] might not be shared by many official grammarians but they really do determine how I speak:

This/these>
- is for something new.
e.g., introductions, This is my sister Mary.
first-time: This is my first time in New York.
- is synonymous with "the present"
- "the purpose of this post [=the present post] is to present a basic outline of rules for selection of demonstrative pronouns that you guys can tear apart.

"That" is for:
anything mentioned previously in the discourse [even if it is being presently discussed]
See post 1 for examples.

The rules for This, That used as demonstrative adjectives (this car/that car) are slightly different and depend mainly on proximity/distance: I like these apples (in front of me) but not those ones (in the distance)


----------



## JulianStuart

> It's so damn cold. [That/This] is what drives me crazy about this place.



For me, the choice might often be "that". It might be after a discussion of various other properties of "this place" - I am perhaps indicating which one aspect out of the list (virtually in front of me/us).  However, I would have no qualms using _this_ if I was in fact _shivering at the time_ and the "this" referred to being cold at the instant in question, aka the present, probably with an emphasis on the the word _this_.  Note that _this_ (instance) might not be the first time I've shivered because the heater broke.  This is what (repeatedly) drives me crazy...

I'm discussing a family photo with a friend, pointing out individuals with my forefinger: "That's my sister and this is grandma before she moved to New Jersey."  I could reverse those examples this and that.  I could even talk about _these_ examples of this and that because they are the present examples.

I am beginning to think I still speak BrE -wise on the issue at hand.  My guiding rule remains clarity and elimination of potential ambiguity.  If those goals are met (- equally euphonious for me: If these goals are met) then I feel free to follow a whim rather than a rule that still seems to evade me.  I definitely have a hard time remembering the restrictive clause thingy


----------



## William Stein

JulianStuart said:


> For me, the choice might often be "that". It might be after a discussion of various other properties of "this place" - I am perhaps indicating which one aspect out of the list (virtually in front of me/us).  However, I would have no qualms using _this_ if I was in fact _shivering at the time_ and the "this" referred to being cold at the instant in question, aka the present, probably with an emphasis on the the word _this_.  Note that _this_ (instance) might not be the first time I've shivered because the heater broke.  This is what (repeatedly) drives me crazy...



I think if you say "It's so damn cold. That's what drives me crazy about this place" in a normal tone of voice then "that" is the natural choice to refer back to the previous sentence. It's true that "this is what drives me crazy" is possible if you want to get histrionic, put a big emphasis on the word "this" (naturally calls Al Pacino to mind) and wave your arms around to show that you're referring to "this place" here.




JulianStuart said:


> I'm discussing a family photo with a friend, pointing out individuals with my forefinger: "That's my sister and this is grandma before she moved to New Jersey."  I could reverse those examples this and that.  I could even talk about _these_ examples of this and that because they are the present examples.



When I say something new I meant an introduction in the here-and-now with all parties present. You'd almost always say "This is my sister Mary". A photo is different because the photograph is a sort of previous symbolic reference to the person plus you're pointing away from yourself to indicate something "out there" in the photo.



JulianStuart said:


> I am beginning to think I still speak BrE -wise on the issue at hand.  My guiding rule remains clarity and elimination of potential ambiguity.  If those goals are met (- equally euphonious for me: If these goals are met) then I feel free to follow a whim rather than a rule that still seems to evade me.  I definitely have a hard time remembering the restrictive clause thingy



You're a free agent but ambiguity is always a big problem with this and that and pronouns. I try to minimize that kind of vague reference when I translate legal texts by replacing them with the original noun (and if that [by the way, I think "this" would really suck here] results in repetition, so what, it's a million times more important to avoid ambiguity in contracts).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

JulianStuart said:


> I definitely have a hard time remembering the restrictive clause thingy



The restrictive clause rule is a relatively recent obligation for Americans, and, in my view, utter nonsense. If one reads older American authors, like William James, one will not find it in evidence.
To the topic, I would use _these_ or _such_ in all three original sentences, but never _those, _which sounds flat out wrong to my ears.


----------



## Wordsmyth

panjandrum said:


> _[...] _Referring to the specific points made in post #1 about these rather than those, I am sure that I would use "these" in all the examples, because there is no need to introduce a more distant "those".
> In all three examples only one set of things has been mentioned and that set of things is the current topic of the sentence.





JulianStuart said:


> _[...] _I'm discussing a family photo with a friend, pointing out individuals with my forefinger: "That's my sister and this is grandma before she moved to New Jersey."  I could reverse those examples this and that.
> _[...] _
> My guiding rule remains clarity and elimination of potential ambiguity.  If those goals are met (- equally euphonious for me: If these goals are met) then I feel free to follow a whim rather than a rule that still seems to evade me. _[...] _


 These comments from panj and Julian_ (blue highlights are mine)_ reinforce the point I made in #28: 





Wordsmyth said:


> _[...] _There are other occasions where no distinction is needed, where either "this" or "that" can mean "the thing we know I'm talking about"; then BrE speakers sometimes use the two interchangeably. _[...] _


 I would hazard a guess that the instances where there's no ambiguity are perhaps more numerous than those where a _this/that_ distinction is necessary. In the former case, there's no practical reason to insist on "that" rather than "this" — unless of course you want to stick to something you were taught at school (and many others weren't) just for the sake of it.

The principle is well reflected in the dialect of Somerset (England), where I was brought up. The dialect word "thick" or "thicky" (voiced "th" as in "this", not as in "thin")(from Anglo-Saxon _thic_ > Old English _thilk_) can mean "this" or "that". But when a distinction is needed, a qualifying "yur"_(here)_ or "thur" _(there)_ is added: "thick(y) tree yur _(here)_" or "thick(y) tree thur _(there)_" — or "thick'un yur" (this one here), "thick'un thur" (that one there).


William Stein said:


> I think if you say "It's so damn cold. That's what drives me crazy about this place" in a normal tone of voice then "that" is the natural choice to refer back to the previous sentence. It's true that "this is what drives me crazy" is possible if you want to get histrionic, put a big emphasis on the word "this" (naturally calls Al Pacino to mind) and wave your arms around to show that you're referring to "this place" here. _[...]_


 William, I get the impression that you may be confusing 'natural choice' with your own preference. And I assure you that I might well say "This is what drives me crazy ..." without being the least bit histrionic, Pacino-esque, or waving my arms around. I'd guess the same goes for Julian (#48) and for many others. Once again, I think you're confusing me (us?) with yourself.

Ws


----------



## William Stein

Wordsmyth said:


> William, I get the impression that you may be confusing 'natural choice' with your own preference. And I assure you that I might well say "This is what drives me crazy ..." without being the least bit histrionic, Pacino-esque, or waving my arms around. I'd guess the same goes for Julian (#48) and for many others. Once again, I think you're confusing me (us?) with yourself.
> 
> Ws



Well, I think you're overgeneralizing since I was not  trying to establish any kind of "natural tendency" à la Rousseau anywhere else in my arguments; on the contrary, I was trying to establish a differential trend in US versus UK English and I think the general contempt of "that/those" among UK readers has been well evidenced by the majority of the posts. If you're claiming that I'm just imagining things and that the trend is universal, I don't believe it but I don't have time to do a full-scale research project with statistical evidence.


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> I was trying to establish a differential trend in US versus UK English and I think the general contempt of "that/those" among UK readers has been well evidenced by the majority of the posts..



William, if I hadn't read your impassioned pleas and explanations which indicate your _serious_ concern on this issue, I might think that your use of words like contempt, hang-up and phobia showed a degree of paranoia on your part that we are all attacking your elusive "rule" deliberately and with malice aforethought.  The thread is probably a good deal longer than it might have been if calmer words had been used to establish, as you now acknowledge above, that the rule you follow is simply not followed by those who speak BrE.  Simple as that.  I will keep an eye (ear) out for examples of what I think you mean!


----------



## Loob

I would find it very interesting to know whether the 'rule' William follows is followed by other speakers of AmE...


----------



## Wordsmyth

William Stein said:


> Well, I think you're overgeneralizing since I was not  trying to establish any kind of "natural tendency" _[...]_


 I wasn't generalising at all. I was commenting solely on your very specific remarks about the "so damn cold" example. That's why I used a continuous tense (_you may be confusing_). If I had wanted to generalise, I would have used the simple present (_you confuse_).


William Stein said:


> _[...]_ If you're claiming that I'm just imagining things and that the trend is universal  _[...]_


 I'm not. Nor can I find anything I said that would suggest that.

William, I heartily implore you to consider Julian's comments just above. Remember that this isn't just a ding-dong between half a dozen people, but that this thread will be read by many others (it's had 418 views already). So if you make sweeping statements about 'phobias' (which don't exist) and 'contempt among UK readers' (which doesn't exist), then to avoid other readers, quite often non-native speakers, from being misled, we have to reply in a way that puts a realistic perspective on the topic.

_[Edit]:_ You're right, Loob. The replies to William are predominantly from the right-hand side of the pond. But we do have lucas-sp's post #21 — and of course Julian's (AE/BE) views.

Ws


----------



## William Stein

Wordsmyth said:


> So if you make sweeping statements about 'phobias' (which don't exist) and 'contempt among UK readers' (which doesn't exist), then to avoid other readers, quite often non-native speakers, from being misled, we have to reply in a way that puts a realistic perspective on the topic. (AE/BE)



I stand by what I said. I don't have to imagine anything, it suffices to read the thread carefully. Julian is half UK/US and seems to half-accepting of "that/those" but almost all the UK posters never countenance a single instance of the "tha*" word:
See PaulQ (see posts 5 et seq.) -- marks that/those as wrong in every instance + comes up with some "presently being discussed" (= "current topic") criterion that always justifies "this/these" and never justifies "that/those"

That same "principle" is adopted by Pajandrum in post 36: Referring to the specific points made in post #1 about these rather than those, I am sure that I would use "these" in all the examples, because there is no need to introduce a more distant "those".
In all three examples only one set of things has been mentioned and* that set of things is the current topic of the sentenc*e.

Pedro y La Torre Post 50: To the topic, I would use _these or such in all three original sentences, but never those, which sounds flat out wrong to my ears.

Note that they all universally prefer this/these and criticize "that/those" in sentences in which I would definitely prefer "that/those" (and I'm not the worst writer in the world). As to my use of the word "phobia" (an irrational fear or avoidance), the UK avoidance of "tha*" in both the this/that and that/which dichotomies) seems to be just that, although I thought it was plain enough I was using the term in a comic rather than medical sense.
_


----------



## Loob

William Stein said:


> _Note that they all universally prefer this/these and criticize "that/those" in sentences in which I would definitely prefer "that/those"
> _


I can't help feeling that your logic is flawed, William.  It's rather as if you had asked 'Why do BrE-speakers use "dog" for a four-legged canine when I would prefer to use "pig"?', and then used answers from BrE-speakers to prove that BrE-speakers have a phobia of the word "pig".

I'd still be fascinated to know whether other AmE-speakers follow your 'rule'....


----------



## William Stein

Loob said:


> I can't help feeling that your logic is flawed, William.  It's rather as if you had asked "Why do BrE-speakers use "dog" for a four-legged canine when I would prefer to use "pig", and then used answers from BrE-speakers to prove that BrE-speakers have a phobia of the word "pig".


Now you are saying that my use" of "that/these" is wrong, in which case I ask you to demonstrate how. I already formulated my rules, you can try to refute them if you like. Speaking of flawed logic, I already answered your criticisms of the "first-time" criterion and your claim about the "immediacy" criterion.


----------



## Loob

No, I'm not saying that, William - I'm simply saying that the fact that BrE-speakers don't follow your 'rule' does not, in any way, prove that BrE-speakers have a phobia about "that".

I'm also saying that, while your 'rule' works for you, I don't see anything in this thread to indicate that it's universal in North American English.


----------



## panjandrum

It would perhaps be useful to get beyond personal perspectives and try to find some external substance.

WilliamS tells us in post #2.For the sake of clarification, I was taught that "this" is for something  new (this is my sister) or the "present" (this house is very nice; the  purpose of this essay is...], whereas "that/those" should be used to  refer back to something mentioned previously.
.​I went off to see if I could find any BE grammatical sources offering guidance on these/those.
Cambridge Grammar of English: 
"Demonstrative pronouns express contrasts between what is 'near' and what is 'distant', whether in space, time or emotional distance in terms of the speaker and listener.  _This_ and _these _are speaker-oriented; _that _and _those _are listener-oriented.
.​Oxford English Grammar:... contrast in proximity: _this _and _these _indicate relative nearness, _that _and _those _indicate relative remoteness.  The proximity may be in space or in time.
.​I also searched through the grammar links in the resources section of this forum, many of which are AE.
I was not able to find any suggestion that "this" is for something new, or an emphasis on "that" being for something mentioned previously.
.


----------



## Wordsmyth

William Stein said:


> _[...]_ it suffices to read the thread carefully.
> _[...]__
> As to my use of the word "phobia" (an irrational fear or avoidance), the UK avoidance of "tha*" [...] _


 It does indeed suffice to read the thread carefully, William. If you do, you'll find that the UK posters make several references to the interchangeable use of "this" and "that" when the meaning is clear regardless of which one you use. That is NOT a refusal of the word "that"; it's simply a disagreement with your refusal of the word "this" in those circumstances.

As for "an *irrational* avoidance", you might care to read my post #28 (et seq), in which I provided a *rational* explanation of the use of "this" and "that" in common UK usage — which in no way involves "avoidance".

Ws


----------



## William Stein

panjandrum said:


> It would perhaps be useful to get beyond personal perspectives and try to find some external substance.
> 
> WilliamS tells us in post #2.For the sake of clarification, I was taught that "this" is for something  new (this is my sister) or the "present" (this house is very nice; the  purpose of this essay is...], whereas "that/those" should be used to  refer back to something mentioned previously.
> .​I went off to see if I could find any BE grammatical sources offering guidance on these/those.
> Cambridge Grammar of English:"Demonstrative pronouns express contrasts between what is 'near' and what is 'distant', whether in space, time or emotional distance in terms of the speaker and listener.  _This_ and _these _are speaker-oriented; _that _and _those _are listener-oriented.
> .​Oxford English Grammar:... contrast in proximity: _this _and _these _indicate relative nearness, _that _and _those _indicate relative remoteness.  The proximity may be in space or in time.
> .​I also searched through the grammar links in the resources section of this forum, many of which are AE.
> I was not able to find any suggestion that "this" is for something new, or an emphasis on "that" being for something mentioned previously.
> .



"This" for something new follows from "this" being used for something "near' whether in space, time or emotional distance".
This one I would claim is the same in the US and UK. For example, if you are introducing somebody next to you (in spatial proximity) you say "This is my friend..." In all honesty, you would not say 'That is my friend", in that situation right?
Similarly, in a list in which you are going to present something new (such as findings), you would say "these" not "those":
For example: "I've looked everywhere for rules. These are the only ones I have found:" (And not "Those* are the only ones I could find:....).

"That" being used for some mentioned previously follows from "that being used  what is 'distant', whether in space, time or emotional distance"" because the things that have already been mentioned have already been "laid down" or  "posited" on the path of discourse, which is necessarily linear, so we have to "jump" back to them (distance).


----------



## Loob

In the absence of advice from other AmE-speakers confirming your 'rule', William, I fear you're going to have to treat your dislike of BrE-speakers' use of "this/these" as an idiosyncratic "pet peeve"


----------



## PaulQ

panjandrum said:


> I also searched through the grammar links in the resources section of this forum, many of which are AE.
> I was not able to find any suggestion that "this" is for something new, or an emphasis on "that" being for something mentioned previously.


It may well be that as *this *and *that *are often used where both speaker and listener are giving out and taking in visual clues, a lot of grammar, for simplicity and space, supposes that both are blind.

e.g. "This is Harry" would not conform to the rules if Harry were at the far end of a crowded pub, but if Harry had just newly walked through the door at the far end of the pub and  and the speaker alerted the listener and pointed at Harry, then "This is Harry" would be correct.


----------



## William Stein

Wordsmyth said:


> It does indeed suffice to read the thread carefully, William. If you do, you'll find that the UK posters make several references to the interchangeable use of "this" and "that" when the meaning is clear regardless of which one you use. That is NOT a refusal of the word "that"; it's simply a disagreement with your refusal of the word "this" in those circumstances.
> 
> As for "an *irrational* avoidance", you might care to read my post #28 (et seq), in which I provided a *rational* explanation of the use of "this" and "that" in common UK usage — which in no way involves "avoidance".
> 
> Ws


All the UK posts (5, 36 and 50) I cited universally condemned "that/those" in the sentences I cited with no  signs of moderation and no counterexamples of when "that/those" might be acceptable. 
 Post 21 partially prefers "that" and could go either way on the others, but that's an American not a Brit. Julian finds them interchangeable often, too, but he's half US/UK by his own admission, so that doesn't prove anything. PaulQ gives an example of using "that" as a demonstrative adjective "this tree/that tree") but nobody ever questioned that and he gives no example of any case in which he would use "that/those" by themselves to refer back to previous points. 
Your point in post 28 about "this" referring to the very last thing is not very clear to me. That may be true if you say "about this last-mentioned item" but "this" by itself can hardly be considered unambiguous when readers have such widely divergent interpretations have been shown in this thread.
I have no exact statistics available but it seems to me, a priori, that the distribution between this and that, should be about 50/50 (granted, that's speculative), but in the UK texts I proofed it's at least 95/5. I don't think people rationally make that choice, so it's necessarily "irrational" in that respect, and it's also irrational in the sense that it no longer respects the original deictic functions of the this/that dichotomy.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I know this is the English Only forum, but it's interesting that William's principle (or his teacher's) corresponds to the formal use in French of the equivalents of "this" and "that" — and we do know that certain elements of American English usage have been influenced in the past by the languages of other European settlers, so maybe there's some connection (or not!). 

But it's also interesting that in popular French speech the lines between "that" and "this" (referring to "already stated" and "what follows") are becoming blurred. Formal teaching, however, still insists on the rule. Sounds very much like the present debate.

Ws


----------



## William Stein

All the American or partly American (Julian) posts in the threat at least partially confirm "that/those" if you bother to read them, so I don't think I'm just imagining the trend along with my little pink elephants  Anyway my objective was not to convince anybody else, I couldn't care less, I just wanted to determine whether the Brits really consider "this/these" correct to refer back to remote things and they obviously do judging by the posts.


----------



## JulianStuart

William Stein said:


> ... I just wanted to determine whether the Brits really consider "this/these" correct to refer back to remote things and they obviously do judging by the posts.



I think by your own admission this thread has convinced you it's true.  And you don't like it.  I'm with Loob, that this* constitutes a "pet peeve".  (Many AmE speakers rise to the level of having "pet peeves" about some aspect of "correct/standard" BrE - and vice versa as noted earlier).  It took me a little while to acknowledge that such peeves are not productive**.

* referring to either the conclusion or the behaviour/dislike (previously mentioned but) still under discussion.  Is the above an example where you would insist on that?

**Some prescriptivists hated him for it but William Safire is credited with the saying "When enough of them are wrong, they're right".  This applies both spatially and temporally


----------



## panjandrum

William Stein said:


> All the UK posts (5, 36 and 50)I cited *universally condemned *"that/those" in the sentences I cited with no  signs of moderation and no counterexamples of when "that/those" might be acceptable.
> ...


That's a bit extreme!

Post #5 is yours.
In post #4, PaulQ: I find, applying my own rules at the link given, *these *to be correct.
In post #36, me: I am sure that I would use "these" in all the examples
In post #50, Pedro: I would use _these_ or _such_ in all three original sentences, but never _those, _which sounds flat out wrong to my ears.

Only Pedro comments on "those" - somewhat short of universal condemnation.

I wonder about your presumption that the distribution should be 50/50.
In most discourse, the focus of discussion is on the immediate topic, things that are close to the speaker in space, time and emotional distance.


----------



## William Stein

panjandrum said:


> That's a bit extreme!
> 
> Post #5 is yours.
> In post #4, PaulQ: I find, applying my own rules at the link given, *these *to be correct.
> In post #36, me: I am sure that I would use "these" in all the examples
> In post #50, Pedro: I would use _these_ or _such_ in all three original sentences, but never _those, _which sounds flat out wrong to my ears.
> 
> Only Pedro comments on "those" - somewhat short of universal condemnation.
> 
> I wonder about your presumption that the distribution should be 50/50.
> In most discourse, the focus of discussion is on the immediate topic, things that are close to the speaker in space, time and emotional distance.



I admit (and already admitted incidentally) that the 50/50 assumption is speculative, but why shouldn't it be about half and half? The problem with this "immediate topic", 'current topic" stuff is that anything you talk about, no matter how remote, necessarily becomes the "current topic" -- think of the extremely common topic of somebody complaining about the boss's behavior yesterday., It was all yesterday, it's no longer here-and-now, but it's the "current topic", and the same is true if your discussing the French Revolution.

It's true that they did not step forward and say: "I formally condemn and abjure the heinous word "tha*" in all its manifestations" but in the context of disagreeing with my assertion that "that/those" would be preferrable they implicitly reject it.


----------



## Loob

I agree 100% with Julian's post 68.  But I'm still not convinced there's a BrE/AmE difference here - and I won't be until/unless other AmE-speakers confirm William's rule.

(PS.  I thought Wordsmyth's comment about French was really interesting....)


----------



## e2efour

I have little of value to say about this (interesting) thread except that it has long been my impression that _that/those_ is preferred to _this/these_ in AE. I do react when I see this usage, in the same way that you react to the BE usage, i.e. it is one way I can tell that a text has probably been written by an American.

One curiosity, which may not be relevant, is what people say when answering the phone to someone who does not give their name:
AE: Who is this?
BE: Who is that?


----------



## Loob

e2efour said:


> AE: Who is this?
> BE: Who is that?


That was one of my reasons for saying earlier that I thought AmE used "this" in situations where BrE would use "that"


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

panjandrum said:


> Post #5 is yours.
> In post #4, PaulQ: I find, applying my own rules at the link given, *these *to be correct.
> In post #36, me: I am sure that I would use "these" in all the examples
> In post #50, Pedro: I would use _these_ or _such_ in all three original sentences, but never _those, _which sounds flat out wrong to my ears.
> 
> Only Pedro comments on "those" - somewhat short of universal condemnation.



Let me furthermore add that I was certainly not condemning such usage in toto, but merely making clear that it sounds off to _me. _Others are at perfect liberty to speak as they wish!



e2efour said:


> One curiosity, which may not be relevant, is what people say when answering the phone to someone who does not give their name:
> AE: Who is this?
> BE: Who is that?



Whereas here, I'd always use ''this''.

I'll get my coat....


----------



## Wordsmyth

William Stein said:


> _[...]_  but in the context of disagreeing with my assertion that "that/those" would be preferrable they implicitly reject it.


 Flawed logic was mentioned earlier, William. I'm afraid I have to mention it again. Disagreeing that something is preferable is not the same as rejecting it (even implicitly). It's just saying that it's not preferable.

If you said "We could go by bus or by train, but the bus is preferable (because it's cheaper)", I might reply "I think the train is preferable (because it's more comfortable)". Nothing in that says that I'm rejecting the bus (even implicitly). In fact, I might take the bus just to keep you happy. Your preference may be 60/40 in favour of the bus. Mine might be 60/40 for the train. Neither of us has rejected the other's preference.

Ws


----------



## William Stein

Wordsmyth said:


> Flawed logic was mentioned earlier, William. I'm afraid I have to mention it again. Disagreeing that something is preferable is not the same as rejecting it (even implicitly). It's just saying that it's not preferable.
> 
> If you said "We could go by bus or by train, but the bus is preferable (because it's cheaper)", I might reply "I think the train is preferable (because it's more comfortable)". Nothing in that says that I'm rejecting the bus (even implicitly). In fact, I might take the bus just to keep you happy. Your preference may be 60/40 in favour of the bus. Mine might be 60/40 for the train. Neither of us has rejected the other's preference.
> 
> Ws


And flawed reading should be mentioned as well: you might notice that PaulQ drew a line through "such/those", which clearly means "this is wrong" and Pedro y La Torre called the use of those "flat out wrong", although he qualified that opinion later.


----------



## PaulQ

William Stein said:


> And flawed reading should be mentioned as well: you might notice that PaulQ drew a line through "such/those", which clearly means "this is wrong"


William, as the above quote (#74) shows. and as I said at the time, I did that "applying my own rules" => A qualified rejection, i.e. "in my opinion."


----------



## Botitas36

Hi William,

I must admit that I haven't read the entire discussion, but seeing the examples you included in your opening post, I must say that "these" sounds better to my ear in all three examples. I am from Oklahoma, a place that, as you can imagine, is not at all influenced by current British usage of English. To me, the antecedent is neither far enough away in the sentence(s) nor in time/place to warrant using "those". 

Take care,

Nathan

Edit: I edited a spelling error.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

William Stein said:


> And flawed reading should be mentioned as well: you might notice that PaulQ drew a line through "such/those", which clearly means "this is wrong" and Pedro y La Torre called the use of those "flat out wrong", although he qualified that opinion later.



I qualified it earlier too, e.g. ''to my ears''.
It sounds as if you're taking this whole (healthy) debate a little too much to heart, frankly.


----------



## William Stein

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I qualified it earlier too, e.g. ''to my ears''.
> It sounds as if you're taking this whole (healthy) debate a little too much to heart, frankly.



I'm just defending myself against the accusation of "flawed logic". Anyway, I thank all those who have helped me observe the reactions to this/that, which is all I really have to worry about when proofing. This is starting to enter into the totally unproductive phase where the asker, having obtained some interesting answers to the question, is made to suffer for asking the question by people who never ask questions and just hang around as all-knowing experts. In short, I'm going back to work but have fun guys!


----------



## Loob

Botitas36 said:


> Hi William,
> 
> I must admit that I haven't read the entire discussion, but seeing the examples you included in your opening post, I must say that "these" sounds better to my ear in all three examples. I am from Oklahoma, a place that, as you can imagine, is not at all influenced by current British usage of English. To me, the antecedent is neither far enough away in the sentence(s) nor in time/place to warrant using "those".
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Nathan
> 
> Edit: I edited a spelling error.


Thank you, Nathan!

It's useful to hear that there are AmE-speakers who would not agree with William's 'rule'


William Stein said:


> This is starting to enter into the totally  unproductive phase where the asker, having obtained some interesting  answers to the question, is made to suffer for asking the question by  people who never ask questions and just hang around as all-knowing  experts. In short, I'm going back to work but have fun guys!



It's sad that you feel that way, William.  I think that everyone in this thread has been trying to answer your original question....


----------



## Botitas36

Ah, I forgot to mention, "such" also sounded OK to me, but not "those"! 

Edit: and by sounded "OK" or "not OK", I simply mean that I would not say it like that, but I'm no authority. I would guess, however, that even in the States, "these" or "such" would be more common than "those". I'll definitely keep an eye out for that while reading newspapers and blogs, which I judge to be the most current usages of English.


----------



## lucas-sp

William Stein said:


> I just wanted to determine whether the Brits really consider "this/these" correct to refer back to remote things and they obviously do judging by the posts.


I don't come to the same conclusion as you do here. It seems to me that no BE speakers would say that they use "this/these" to "refer back to _remote_ things." I think they use "this/these" in exactly the same way as AE speakers do - to refer to _more proximate_ things.

The question here, as I see it, is _how BE speakers decide whether things are proximate or remote_. It seems like BE speakers are more likely to prefer emphasizing the proximity of concepts and things. But I don't think they use "this/these" to refer to things that they decide are remote - I think that they see things as being closer to the act of speaking or writing.

On "universal proximity": Certainly, everything we talk about is close to our speaking - just because we're talking about it. But it's also very far away from our speaking, since signifiers will never come into contact with their signifieds. (This is how de Saussure founded linguistics - by discovering the bar between signifier and signified.) This means all things we can point to with "this" or "that" are both somewhat close, and somewhat far away. It's an opportunity to make a judgment about which aspect of something we want to emphasize (its proximity, with "this," or its remoteness, with "that").


----------



## JulianStuart

It is perhaps of interest that in J*panese there are three such signifiers, with attendant benefits in clarity of expression : "this" (nearer the speaker than the listener), "that" (nearer the listener than the speaker) and "that one over there" (distant from both speaker and listener).  I learnt these in terms of geographical proximity, but did not get far enough to comment realtive to some of the cases in this thread.


----------



## Loob

I still can't get to the bottom of this thread

I see that e2efour feels that AmE-speakers use "that"/"those" in situations where BrE-speakers use "this"/"these".  Does anyone else feel the same?


----------



## PaulQ

JulianStuart said:


> ..and "that one over there" (distant from both speaker and listener).


Time to make more use of 'yon' and 'yonder'


----------



## PaulQ

Loob said:


> I see that e2efour feels that AmE-speakers use "that"/"those" in situations where BrE-speakers use "this"/"these".  Does anyone else feel the same?


The BE n-gram  shows a present occurrence of *that *of ~0.84% and *this *at ~0.3% Whereas respectively AE graph is 0.86% and 0.28%. The difference is insignificant.

The two graphs are also very similar between 1800 and the present.


----------



## Tochka

Loob said:


> I still can't get to the bottom of this thread
> I see that e2efour feels that AmE-speakers use "that"/"those" in situations where BrE-speakers use "this"/"these".  Does anyone else feel the same?


I'm afraid I haven't read the full (now 5 page) thread, but I will say that this American does not abide by any firm rule as to which should be used.  For me it is more the general sense of closeness to the thing under discussion that tips the balance, rather than a specific rule.  I haven't remarked on any difference between AE and BE in this, although my native AE ear has been influenced by BE friends and prolonged exposure the Canadian version of BE.

Generally speaking,  I use "this" (or "these") for a sense of something closer in distance or time, and "that" for something more distant. The choice for me is a relative one, not dependent on any specific number of lines of text or whatever.  In fact, I can see myself simply using 'this" to refer to one thing under discussion and "that" to another, not so much because of proximity as to simply distinguish one from the other, this from that.  

It may be important to note, however, that sometimes the choice will be related to style rather than grammar.   The word "that" sounds much more emphatic than "this."  For one thing, the "a" is a stronger vowel sound than the "i" (as is the "o" of "those" as compared to the "e" of "these"), but also "that" can give a feeling of distancing yourself (as the speaker) from what you are referring to--as if you are standing back and pointing at it.  ("That man!") As an interesting aside, I'll mention the example of an attorney I know of (an American), who heard a "tip" in a legal writing seminar that whenever possible "that" should be used rather than "this", since this made the writing sound stronger.  This was mentioned not as a rule of grammar, but as an advocacy technique.  Those with a better sense of language usage cringed at this one-size-fits-all approach.  (After all, even if "that" does sound more emphatic, if everything is emphasized, nothing is emphasized!) Still, this gentleman believed his advocacy guru and insisted that any writings submitted to him conform to "that" so-called rule and every offending "this" had to be exorcized .


----------

