Job Discussion Forums

[Dr.J]

So; it's OK to use 'which' to introduce a clause as long as it is relative and not defining. Whether it sounds natural or not is probably the US/British English thing.
It's just strange to me because I was brought up as a kid in a US English environment and then moved to a British one so I can usually tell which is which (that is that?).

[Marcoregano]

Thanks Leeroy for supplying the answer to my original query. I dunno how we're supposed to figure these things out when you can't find a straight answer in tomes like Swan. Is there a better grammar guide?

I wonder how often other people run up against insoluble grammatical problems? It happens to me quite frequently. I ended up telling my students that in the first case, Liverpool was being referred to as a "thing" whereas in the second case the idea was "place". They seemed quite happy with this. I'm not sure if I'll bother giving them the more grammatical explanation next week...it might confuse matters.

[Hogbear]

[jud]

I actually like Swan, but it's designed for the teacher, not for the students.

Murphy's English in Use (all levels) is designed for learners and as such has good examples and explanations.

"That" can be used to replace who or which in defining relative clauses. In American and British English.

She is the person who/that inspires me most.
He is a man who(m)/that I trust.

New York is a city which/that has a lot to offer.

I like New York, which is my hometown, because it has so much to offer.

Who and which don't sound so formal or stilted to me.

[Hogbear]

[jud]

Murphy and Swan.

You got a problem with that?

[Hogbear]

That and which are not interchangeable in American English, according to every American English authority I'm aware of (CMS, AP, WiT, Bernstein, etc.).

Are Murphy and Swan Americans?

[jud]

Whether they're American or not is immaterial.

In your previous example,

[waxwing]

Perhaps the source of this disagreement (between jud and Hogbear) is simply the difference between the rules for colloquial (especially spoken) English and the rules given in style guides for writers, e.g. journalists?

I'm almost certain this is not an American/British distinction.

[Hogbear]

[worth]

Relax people,
In Azar, it states that in RELATIVE CLAUSES, which and that are interchangable. This is true in both the United States and Great Britain. I teach in the US, and I tell my students that both are acceptable, but in the US it is more common to use that. Of course, they are not ALWAYS interchangable:

I want go to THAT house.
Which house?
THAT house.

Peace

[mjed9]

[Hogbear]

[worth]

Obviously, when I wrote "that house" I knew it wasn't part of a reletive clause. That is why I capatalized reletive clause. the point I was trying to make was that in RELATIVE CLAUSES that and which are intercahngeble when talking about a thing.

Next, Azar. I think Azar is one of the best grammar books around, both for students and teachers (at least those teachers, like me who need an occasional reminder of certain points). The two Azar books are "Fundamentals of English Grammar," and "Understanding and Using English Grammar."

I'm a little surprised that people are not familiar with Azar as I thought it was generally considered one of the "bibles" of grammar. I must be mistaken. Perhaps I've been using a terrible book. I hope not. Any other comments about Azar?

Peace

[Hogbear]

I see your point now, worth. Sorry 'bout the mixup.

I'm not an ESL teacher (I'm a magazine editor), so that's probably why I've never heard of Azar.

All of my styleguides draw the that/which distinction, but a lot of them do leave exceptions for using which sometimes. (when a sentence contains the conjunction that and when euphony may override the convention). The New Yorker also has some rule called "the exceptional which," which is used if it needs to "reach back" to a noun earlier in the sentence.

Here is the entry from The Chicago Manual of Style, which grudgingly accepts the use of which as a restrictive toward the end:

--------------------------------------

Q. Could you please explain to me the proper usage of �which� vs. �that�? CMS does not explain it in detail, and I could really use a �hard-and-fast� rule to keep in mind regarding proper usage of these terms. Here is an example of the actual sentence currently in debate:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 which became law on June 7, 2001 is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades.

I felt that in this instance �which� should be replaced with �that,� or that the phrase �which became law on June 7, 2001� should be set off in commas. A coworker disagreed, saying that �which� is correct because there is only one Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, but that doesn�t seem right to me. Should we just have rewritten it to say �The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed on June 7, 2001 is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades�?

HELP! Thank you.

A. First, the correct form for the sentence you cite:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which became law on June 7, 2001, is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades.

The phrase �which became law on June 7, 2001� is not necessary to the meaning of the sentence; remove it and the sentence still makes sense (for one thing, without it, there�s no question as to what is the largest change in tax regulations in the past twenty years). Your colleague is right to point out that it is important that there was only one such act of 2001, but when you use �which� for a nonrestrictive (unnecessary) clause, you must set it off with commas.

The basic rule: Use �which� plus commas to set off nonrestrictive clauses; use �that� to introduce a restrictive clause. If there had been two or more �Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation� acts in 2001, �that� would have been correct:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 that became law on June 7, 2001, is the largest change in tax regulations in over two decades. The one that became law on June 1 was not.

Note that a comma is required after 2001 regardless. This is a strict rule, but once you start to set something off (in this case, with the comma before 2001), you must finish setting it off so that it doesn�t look as if it belongs only to what comes after.

Here are some less complex examples that might illustrate the point more succinctly:

Pizza that�s less than an inch deep just isn�t Chicago style.

Pizza, which is a favorite among Chicagoans, can be either bad for you or good, depending on how much of it you eat.

Note that if you remove �that�s less than an inch deep� from the first sentence, it becomes inaccurate; i.e., it�s not true that �pizza just isn�t Chicago style.� The clause, then, is restrictive (necessary) to the sentence; therefore �that� is correct. You could even leave �that� out:

Pizza less than an inch deep just isn�t Chicago style.

If, however, you take out the clause �which is a favorite among Chicagoans� from the second sentence, it still makes sense: i.e., pizza can be either bad for you or good, and whether or not it is a favorite among Chicagoans does not �restrict� this meaning; therefore the clause is nonrestrictive and should be introduced by �which� and set off by commas.

Some people use �which� restrictively, which is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) as long as no commas are involved:

Pianos which have a fourth pedal to mute the strings are popular among apartment owners.

See paragraphs 5.58�63 in the fifteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style for more information, and, for a succinct statement of Chicago style when it comes to which vs. that, see the entry for �that; which� in the �Glossary of Troublesome Expressions� at paragraph 5.202.

--------------------------------------

"More or less okay," doesn't sound preferable to me, but I admit that the rule is not as written in stone as I thought it was, and it seems that jounalistic guidelines in America have embraced the that/which distinction sometime during the 20th century. I still think it's a good distinction, and I'd like to see if any American authorities on grammar subscribe to the "they're interchangable" notion. I'm not trying to be an American jerk, I just think it's best to weigh all opinions rather than to take the first British grammarian's opinion on what seems to be an American convention. Again, I would feel the same way if an American were opining on British nuances.