The Which Hunt

By Frederick Menezes

The perennial debate between that and which continues. Is there a difference between that and which when we use them as relative pronouns? Can we use them interchangeably? What are the grammar rules that govern their usage?

On the other hand, which has been used to introduce non-restrictive (non-essential) clauses. A non-restrictive clause contains informative but non-essential information. Even if we remove a non-restrictive clause from a sentence, the meaning of the sentence would not change. Non-restrictive clauses are set off by commas.

The house, which was built by his grandfather, is 110 years old. 

In the above sentence, the clause “which was built by his grandfather” is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. It only gives some additional information. Even if we remove the clause from the sentence, the essence of the sentence is not changed.

But, very few people have consistently adhered to the “that for restrictive clauses and which for non-restrictive clauses” rule. We would find a host of examples where which has been used to introduce restrictive clauses.

Let’s look at one of our previous examples and use which in place of that.

She lost the book which she had won for her essay on corruption.

Strictly speaking, nothing seems incorrect in the above sentence. Such usage is commonplace. In fact—to paraphrase the American Heritage Book of English Usage—if we fail to follow the “which for only non-restrictive clauses rule,” we have plenty of company.

Moreover, there could be instances where which is more elegant than that. For instance, let’s look at the sentence below.

I want to read only that document which includes references to the recent plague.

In the above sentence, which introduces a restrictive clause. But, the sentence construction is more elegant than what we would have got if we had used that instead of which.

However, the problem arises when the use of which for restrictive clauses introduces some ambiguities. Let’s look at the sentence below.

Stomach tumors which result from improper food diet are very painful.

We could interpret the sentence in two ways:

1. Stomach tumors, which result from improper food diet, are very painful.

 (Stomach tumors are very painful. Stomach tumors result from improper food diet.)

2. Stomach tumors that result from improper food diet are very painful.

(Stomach tumors that result from improper food diet are very painful. There could also be stomach tumors that result from causes other than improper food diet.)

It is probably such ambiguities that prompted H.W. Fowler (the distinguished grammarian) to suggest, “If writers would agree to regard that as the defining (restrictive) relative pronoun, and which as the non-defining, there would be much gain in lucidity and in ease.” It is believed that the distinction between that and which was first proposed by Fowler.

Many grammarians and style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style, agree with Fowler’s suggestion and encourage the “that for restrictive clauses and which for non-restrictive clauses” usage.

However, most grammarians also note that it is virtually impossible to insist that the use of which as a restrictive relative pronoun is incorrect.

Sometimes, copyeditors go on, what is known as, “which hunts.” They mechanically seek all thats which should be whiches and all whiches that should be thats. Such an approach is not desirable because, as we have seen before, which is not incorrect in the restrictive sense.

Besides, it’s not always easy to determine whether a phrase is restrictive or non-restrictive (as we have seen in the “stomach tumors” example). In such cases, editors should always query the author before making a change.

(Frederick Menezes leads and manages the Technical Services Education team at VERITAS Software, Pune. He is the Immediate Past President of STC India and the founder Editor of Indus. You can contact him at Frederick@stc-india.org.)

STC India | Home | Contact Us

Copyright © 2003 India Chapter STC. All rights reserved.