When referring to a thing (not a person) use the relative pronoun which to introduce a non-restrictive clause.

Example: The librarian organized the books, which were written by Robert Cormier.

When referring to a thing (not a person) use the relative pronoun that to introduce a restrictive clause.

Example: The librarian organized the books that were written by Robert Cormier.

I think that you may want to start this paragraph out differently. You May want to give a more in-depth explaination of what the differences in clauses are-Liz Brose. The two previous examples may seem similar, but have different meanings. The first example, the non-restrictive clause, means that the librarian organized the books and all of them happened to be written by Robert Cormier. The second example, the restrictive clause, means that of all of the books in the library, the librarian organized only those that were written by Robert Cormier.
It is amazing how humans learn language at such a young age and yet we are not able to pinpoint the grammar rules of our language until we are taught in school. Great point here but the wording seems really off-Heather Brown. We use the grammar rules, but we do not realize that we use them. This may not be the case with everyone, but I know that when I was young I had no idea what a subject or verb was, let alone that a subject plus a verb (and sometimes object) makes a sentence. Of course, our knowledge of grammar is dependent on the dialect of language in which we are raised. I am blessed to have been raised in a family that speaks what is known today as “Standard English.” We did not use words like “ain’t” or confuse “lie down” and “lay down.” I do understand that one dialect is not superior to another, but I grew up learning the English that is taught in school.I know you mean this to come off in a nice way, but it comes off really snooty maybe try to change the words around so it still says your point without coming off superiour-Heather Brown It is nice to know that, for the most part, I am able to use English correctly without much effort. I did not learn about the official difference between which and that until I participated in an advanced English grammar class last year. I always understood the difference in meaning (because this was a grammar rule in the dialect I learned), but I never realized that which introduces non-restrictive clauses and that introduces restrictive clauses. It just sounded funny to me when it was misused. That’s why I found it amusing when Joseph Williams’ labeled this rule as folklore in his book Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. Joseph Williams was a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Chicago and has exceptional writing skills. I respect most of his opinions and observations about how to write clearly and elegantly but on this one, I disagree. Williams believes that the history of this rule is not valid and is furthermore discredited when some respected authors do not recognize the rule. I was unaware of the history of the rule until I read Williams’ book. Apparently, Henry Fowler introduced it in 1906 in The King’s English. Fowler felt that there needed to be clarification of when to use the words which and that. Williams believes that the rule has “no historical force or then-contemporary practice whatsoever” (183). Regardless of whether or not the rule had no historical force, the rule began to take hold. If it had not, then I would not have intuitively known that it sounded wrong when I heard it. Also, if it was historically unfounded, we would not be debating the issue now. Furthermore, there are other grammar rules that have similar beginnings and that are recognized today. One example is the well known rule of the split infinitive, which is a rule that was historically derived from Latin (as are many others). Logic mandates that the that/which rule be treated equally. Williams gives more support to his idea by quoting Jacques Barzun, which illustrates that authors do not recognize the rule. Barzun wrote a style manual entitled Simple and Direct. In Barzun’s style manual, Williams points out that Barzun recommends “using that with defining clauses except when stylistic reasons interpose,” and then Barzun proceeds to violate his own rule on the next page (182). While this is ironic, Williams’ argument is not convincing. The very fact that Barzun mentions the rule is evidence that he agrees with it and that the rule is commonly practiced. People are not infallible. Perhaps Barzun made an error that the editors of his book failed to notice. In support of my style rule, I have turned toward the old but reliable The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. This style reference book is well established and respected by many authors. While I do not agree with everything that Strunk and White advocate, we share the same thoughts on the use of which versus that. The rule is not directly mentioned in The Elements of Style, but it is implied while explaining comma usage: “The clauses introduced by which, when, and where are nonrestrictive; they do not limit or define, they merely add something” (4). While digging deeper into the English grammar to recognize style rules, we have to ask ourselves what validates a rule. From a linguistic point of view, style rules vary depending on the dialect of the speaker and who is to say that one dialect is better than the other? As mentioned earlier, I grew up learning the “standard” English dialect, but who determines what constitutes “standard” English? Typically, the “standard” dialect of any language is the language spoken by the nobles, or those in charge of the government. While this may not be politically correct, it is just how things typically worked out. I believe that English is no different and that the “ruling class” has set the standards that are taught in schools. While I do not necessarily agree with the method of acquiring a standard, I do agree that a standard language is necessary. There needs to be one body of rules that governs all writing so that we can communicate our ideas effectively. Imagine trying to read from or speak to a person living in the Appalachian region? Appalachian grammar is vastly different from that of New England or even Seattle. We need a universal American English grammar to promote unity and the communication of ideas, otherwise, in a few hundred years, each dialect will have differed so far from the others that they would be separate languages. That’s how I justify learning all of these seemingly petty rules, even if they are not intuitive according to your dialect.

Works Cited White, E.B. and William Strunk. The Elements of Style. New York: Longman, 2000.

Williams, Joseph. Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995

Good start on your paper. I just think that it needs more clarity and explanation on some of the points that you make. Also, I think that you need a stronger introduction.