|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
That, Which & Who: A Common Grammatical Error Among Lawyersby Diane SandfordINTRODUCTION
"Anyone who tries to explain 'that' and 'which' in less than
an hour is asking for trouble. Fowler, in his 'Modern
English Usage,' takes 25 columns of type." -- William
Zinsser, On Writing Well (2001)
One summer long ago, my husband and I engaged in a personal
grammar contest (for sheer sport, of course). We took
perverse delight in spotting each other's grammatical faux
pas, but the contest also revealed some unflattering
grammatical weaknesses and misconceptions.
Chief among them was the correct use of that, which, and who
in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. At least we were
in good company. Even essayist E.B. White blundered here,
contrary to his own advice to others (see Strunk and White's
Elements of Style).
Lawyers who use these prepositions incorrectly risk being
misunderstood. Fortunately, and contrary to Zinsser, I
think it is possible to explain "that" and "which" in less
than one hour.
THE RULES
EXAMPLES
Let's look at some examples:
1. The wagon, which [incidentally] is now broken, was purchased
at a home improvement store.
2. The wagon that is broken was purchased at a home improvement
store.
3. The brochure, which was designed by our marketing
department, won high praise at the meeting.
4. The brochure that was designed by our marketing department
won high praise at the meeting.
5. The attorney, who graduated from Yale, filed the motion with
the court yesterday.
6. The attorney who graduated from Yale filed the motion with
the court yesterday.
7. The teachers, who have educated my son, deserve an award for
patience.
8. The teachers who have educated my son deserve an award for
patience.
STYLE
Several reasons exist for keeping these grammatical
distinctions in mind.
First, if you as the author can't decide how important or
how defining a clause is in a sentence, then your readers
will be confused as well. Is the clause essential to the
meaning of the sentence (restrictive), or is it a
parenthetical remark (nonrestrictive)? Decide before you
write. Stop, rethink, and reconstruct the sentence to avoid
confusion or misinterpretation.
Second, everyone occasionally writes a sentence that has two
different interpretations. The habits of correctly using
"that" and "which" and of setting off nonrestrictive clauses
with commas (or in parentheses) can save us from ambiguity
even when we are unaware of the possibility.
Finally, the word "that" is more common in speech than
"which." As a result, we perceive "which" as more formal
than "that." It isn't, but it does indeed seem so.
Sometimes a sentence has two clauses, and we feel that a
"that-which" combination scans better than a "that-that" or
a "which-which" combination. Your options are to recast the
sentence, to live with the repetition in the sentence, or to
ignore the rule for the sake of readability.
Words bite back, so proceed at your own risk. Follow the
rules unless you have good reason to override them.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
If you're interested in a more extensive discussion of the
that/which/who conundrum, take a look at Diana Hacker's "A
Writer's Reference" (5th edition) and its companion Web site. Simply click on Language Debates, and select "that versus which."
For the grammar-obsessed, I recommend Otto Jespersen's
"Philosophy of Grammar" (University of Chicago Press, 1924)
Do you have a grammar question? Comments? Suggestions?
Please let me know.
|
