Sign in or 
Share this
Which and That
Sarah Morris (Skyles)
Professor Krause
English 328
February 16, 2008
When to use Which and That 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.
great explanations! suggest moving the explanations after the introduction (it is amazing...) (that really is a great explanation...I have never really understood this rule - good job!) 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. I kind of like the way you started with the rule, an example, and then transitioned into your explanation of the rule. Creative.
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. 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. 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. <-- Me either! 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. (that's interesting as well-kinnell)
Williams believes that the history of this rule is not valid and is furthermore (I don't think you need furthermore here) 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 thatthe rule it sounded wrong when I heard it. Also, if the ruleit 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. (Interesting).
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). suggest not ending with the quoted rule, but a sentence or two or rearrangement of some sentences to further explain the rule. good point and articulation!
While digging deeper into the English grammar to recognize style rules, we have to ask ourselves what validates a rule. (that sentence is a little awkward, you may want to re-phrase-kinnell ) 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. suggest cutting back on "I's" and only leaving subjects and actions in those sentencesThere 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 (leave out I justify suggestion)learning is justified by all of these seemingly petty rules, even if they are not intuitive according to your dialect. great job on sticking to the point with the rules and what Williams said about the rules! This paragraph was a good conclusion with interesting thoughts on English. I would say maybe give a few more examples, but other then that I think you hit it top notch! Great job-Heather Brown
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
Professor Krause
English 328
February 16, 2008
When to use Which and That 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.
great explanations! suggest moving the explanations after the introduction (it is amazing...) (that really is a great explanation...I have never really understood this rule - good job!) 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. I kind of like the way you started with the rule, an example, and then transitioned into your explanation of the rule. Creative.
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. 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. 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. <-- Me either! 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. (that's interesting as well-kinnell)
Williams believes that the history of this rule is not valid and is furthermore (I don't think you need furthermore here) 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 thatthe rule it sounded wrong when I heard it. Also, if the ruleit 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. (Interesting).
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). suggest not ending with the quoted rule, but a sentence or two or rearrangement of some sentences to further explain the rule. good point and articulation!
While digging deeper into the English grammar to recognize style rules, we have to ask ourselves what validates a rule. (that sentence is a little awkward, you may want to re-phrase-kinnell ) 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. suggest cutting back on "I's" and only leaving subjects and actions in those sentencesThere 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 (leave out I justify suggestion)learning is justified by all of these seemingly petty rules, even if they are not intuitive according to your dialect. great job on sticking to the point with the rules and what Williams said about the rules! This paragraph was a good conclusion with interesting thoughts on English. I would say maybe give a few more examples, but other then that I think you hit it top notch! Great job-Heather Brown
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
hbrown5 |
Latest page update: made by hbrown5
, Feb 20 2009, 11:05 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by hbrown5
23 words added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hbrown5 | awesome | 0 | Feb 20 2009, 11:04 PM EST by hbrown5 | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 20 2009, 11:04 PM EST
Watch
I LOVE your essay! It's really intelligent and a great rough draft, shouldn't need to change a whole lot for the final. It's great rule and good information! I enjoy the outside supporting text too :)
|
||||
| Rgorney | Essay | 0 | Feb 20 2009, 6:57 PM EST by Rgorney | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 20 2009, 6:57 PM EST
Watch
Your essay was really interesting, it addresses a topic we all probably struggle with.
Everything flows well and you provide a lot of clear examples and explanations from the text. The only other thing I would suggest is offering more of an introduction to Strunk, White & Williams. Other than that, great job. |
||||
| amahan | Which and That Essay | 0 | Feb 20 2009, 5:22 PM EST by amahan | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 20 2009, 5:22 PM EST
Watch
I think your essay is full of interesting explanations and overall was easy to understand. Great job.
*My comments are italicized and blue. ; ) |
|||||
Showing 3 of 6 threads for this page
- view all
