Casting out the wicked 'which,' and all that

Deciding the correct relative pronoun – "which" or "that" – can be a tricky business.

It is a lovely summer afternoon, as I write; the sky is blue, the clouds are puffy, and a gentle breeze is blowing.

And here I am at my desk, doing a little summer grammar review. I want to make sure I'm clear on the use of which and that in complex sentences.

Both are relative pronouns; they introduce dependent, or subordinate, clauses. They are "relative" – they "establish a relation between" subordinate and main clauses. That introduces essential, or restrictive, clauses. Which introduces nonessential, or nonrestrictive, clauses: material that's not necessarily superfluous, but just not the main point.

For instance: "The house that Peter has bought was once the home of a famous professor." "That Peter has bought" is essential; without it you don't really have much of a sentence.

By contrast: "Peter's house, which he's owned for several years, was designed by a famous architect." The "which" clause has useful but not essential information.

Mignon Fogarty, aka Grammar Girl, says which/that questions are among the most frequent ones she gets, and explains: "Here's the deal: some people will argue that the rules are more complex and flexible than this, but I like to make things as simple as possible, so I say that you use that before a restrictive clause and which before everything else."

Here's her mnemonic: "If you think of the Wicked Witch (Which) of the West from 'The Wizard of Oz,' you know it's okay to throw her out. You won't change the meaning of the sentence without the which phrase. So, you can throw out the which (or witch) clause, commas and all."

The Chicago Manual of Style takes much the same line, albeit a bit less breezily: "In polished American prose, that is used restrictively to narrow a category or identify a particular item being talked about…; which is used nonrestrictively – not to narrow a class or identify a particular item but to add something about an item already identified."

But Grammar Girl is right: Some people will argue that the rules are more complex and flexible than that.

For one thing, with prepositions, you have to use which: "The house in which he has lived for 20 years...."

Also, some authorities call for which with an essential clause if you already have an essential clause with that: "He said Monday that the part of the army which suffered severe casualties needs reinforcement."

That sentence, from The Associated Press Stylebook, appears in a number of style guides.

That so many guides use the same example tells me that this nuance is not exactly graven on the hearts of the people. One Air Force guide that cites it adds, "Follow this rule even if your word-processor's spelling and grammar check function prompts you to change your use of who, that or which in your writing."

A further wrinkle here is that British usage varies somewhat from American.

In its style guide, The Economist, which generally takes a no-nonsense view of things, enunciates the same principle as Grammar Girl, but then uncharacteristically fudges: "Americans tend to be fussy about making a distinction between which and that. Good writers of British English are less fastidious. ("We have left undone those things which we ought to have done.")

The quotation is from the "Book of Common Prayer," which was published in 1928 – before people let their grammar-checkers push them around.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.