That vs Which

1. I would use "that" (mostly on account of sound; the "i" breaks the dark-vowel theme of the sentence)

2. Both are fine.

3. But you will run into people who will tell you that "which" cannot be used in defining relative clauses.

Of course you can, DawnS, it's just that....

'Which' is found to have formal undertones and used mainly in academic prose as a relativiser; 'that' is considered less formal and found mostly in conversation and contemp fiction (and is probably why it also sounds more natural on the ear to some). Maybe?

It can be tricky.

The way i understand it is that basically, "that" is used in restrictive clauses -- i.e., "I gave my cat the can of tuna that was on the shelf." Identifies the tuna in a restrictive way, identifying that particular can of tuna. There may have been other cans of tuna elsewhere

If instead, "I gave my cat the can of tuna which was on the shelf," it is not restrictive -- it simply gives info about the tuna. I gave the cat tuna. It happened to be sitting on the shelf.

Two slightly different meanings.

Note that you can (and probably should use commas in a non restrictive clause.

"I gave my cat the can of tuna, which was on the shelf." Obviously would not work with "that"

Not a great example; I'm no grammar maven. Hopefully one of our resident experts who actually know what they're talking about will weigh in.

It's a matter of which one you prefer. In your example I wopuld have used "which", but that's personal preference.

Content removed: Premature post. Thought of a couple of other things to say... still working on it.

heza said:

Barring all other considerations, if you use WHICH, set it off with commas.
.

Click to expand...

(Need clarification where the op is from, but, from a Brit Eng pov....)

I know you're referring to the example given, but if the op is saying they are exchanging 'that' for 'which' throughout the manuscript, it may be worth pointing out here that not all 'which' relatives need setting off with a comma:

A conductor is simply something which allows an...

'Which' is found rarely in restrictive clauses, but it does happen. 'That' is also found more with human head nouns; 'which' with non-human.

Determination said:

Fallen, I'm UK born and raised but now live in the US. No wonder my poor grammar is all confused!

Click to expand...

Um... I guess it would depend on which market you're writing for, then.

From the fourth edition of, The Elements of Style...

From Page 4...which, when and where are nonrestrictive pronouns; as they do not limit or define, they merely add something. (The question must be what do they add if they do not define?)

Answer, from page 59, That vs Which...

That is a defining or restrictive pronoun. Which is non-defining or nonrestrictive pronoun.

The use of which, for that is common in written and spoken language... But, careful writers, watchful for small conveniences, go which-hunting, remove the defining whiches, and by so doing improve their work...

So says William Strunk Jr and E.B. White...

Determination said:

Yes, now that you mention it 'which' does sound more formal!

Click to expand...

Just to comment on this: there's nothing formal or informal about using one or the other. It's not like you're choosing between "yes" and "yeah."

American English distinguishes between "that" and "which" in a way that UK English does not. My first question was going to be whether you're an American--if so, and if you submit to an American publisher, there's a much greater likelihood of the editor going through and changing "which" to "that."

The way I have always looked at it--very simply--

That is an absolute,

Which implies a choice.

This coming from an American editor:

The example you provided is not a complete sentence, and so it makes it more difficult to know whether you should use "which" or "that" in it. If you post the complete sentence, it might help.

But to answer your question about when to use "which" or "that":

"That" is used with essential clauses (also known as a restrictive clauses). "Which" is used with non-essential clauses (known as non-restrictive clauses).

So what is the difference between an essential clause and a non-essential clause? An essential clause is essential to the meaning of the whole sentence, and if you take it out, the meaning of the sentence that remains is changed. A non-essential clause is extra information that can be taken out of the sentence without causing the meaning of the sentence to change. You would also use a comma before the non-essential clause (before the "which" in this case).

Here's an example. See if you can figure out the difference in meaning and why one clause is essential and the other clause is non-essential:

A. The cars that Frank sells are lemons.

B. The cars, which Frank sells, are lemons.

In the first example, maybe we're looking at a bunch of cars in a used-car lot, and we say, "the cars that Frank sells are lemons." That would mean, perhaps, that Frank sells some of the cars in the lot, and the ones he sells are lemons. The other cars, which he doesn't sell, may be fine. (There's one right there.) If you take out the essential clause "that Frank sells," then all you're left with is, "The cars are lemons." We've taken out information that is defining (the ones that Frank sells). That defining information is called restrictive information.

In the second example, it's clear that that Frank sells all the cars that we're talking about, because the comma and "which" tell us that the clause is merely adding extra information, not restrictive information. If we take out that clause ("which Frank sells"), the meaning of the sentence is not changed. Maybe we miss out on the extra information that Frank happens to sell the cars we're talking about, but the meaning is still clear: The cars are lemons.

Hope that helps and doesn't confuse.

absitinvidia said:

Just to comment on this: there's nothing formal or informal about using one or the other. It's not like you're choosing between "yes" and "yeah."

Click to expand...

The following is from the Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber, Conrad, Leech). It's not a style guide, so the words 'preferred' below are simply relating to data studied over a certain amout of time (corpora study: it shows where these two occur most frequently across registers of fiction, news, academic writing, and natural conversation, by comparing these four registers).

Academic prose showed 4500 relative which clauses per million hits; fiction showed 2000 for relative 'which'.


'That' in academic prose shows 2225 per million hits; 'that' in fiction shows 4000.

Suggesting:

Which v that in detail

The level of formality associated with each relative pronoun is an important factor in their use. With its more formal academic associations, 'which' is preferred in academic prose. In contrast, 'that' has more informal, colloquial associaions and is thus preferred in conversation and most contemporary fiction.

Click to expand...

That's not saying you can't use which in fiction, just that it's found more frequently in academic writing (perhaps due to how 'that' occurs mainly with human heads, which with non-human; and as academic writing likes to remove the human factor and go with no non-human heads, 'which' would be seen to be the most frequent in academic writing, thus giving 'which' the more formal association).

For the specific example I'd say which, to me it seems to flow with the sentance. Sometimes which can sound a little too formal but then there are times which the use sound better than that.< look perfect example. Also if you overly use one you can go through and replace a few to break up the monotony.

Snick said:

It's a matter of which one you prefer. In your example I wopuld have used "which", but that's personal preference.

Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. It's a matter of a grammatical rule, which has been covered by other posters here.

That said, whether you want to or even should observe the rule is a totally different matter. Many people use 'that' when the rule says to use 'which', and your character should use the word that sounds natural for him or her. A well-educated, formal person would probably observe the rule; someone who speaks in a very colloquial manner, not so much.

This is a case where the rule can be and often is broken, but as a writer, you should know the rule and consciously choose to break it, not just go with a vague 'personal preference'.

Any time one of my characters says 'that' when the rule says they should've used 'which', it's purposeful. I believe that all of our writing should be that way. Following rules slavishly usually leads to dry, lifeless prose (much like what I write for my day job ); knowing the rules and when to break them is what makes the writing pop and crackle with life.

Determination said:

Fallen, I'm UK born and raised but now live in the US. No wonder my poor grammar is all confused!

Click to expand...

Another English chick.

And you more than likely know this, then... the Chicago Manual of Style may be your best option if you intend selling to the American market. You could always check up with the Oxford guide to Style for UK guides.

But both are just style guides and your own style should come first.

Some American publishers like the CMOS and ask you to edit with that in mind. However, they're not gonna shoot you if you don't.

Just to beat the point to death... for American English, there are two cases I know, off hand, that require WHICH in the restrictive clause.

1. When the pronoun follows a preposition. This is the conundrum in which we find ourselves.

2. When the word being modified by the restrictive clause is THAT. He took that which was his due.

Determination said:

Can you explain why some people say "which" cannot be used in defining relative clauses?

Click to expand...

Because Fowler said so. It is one of those prescriptions that can be safely ignored. Excellent writers, both before and after Fowler, have paid no attention to his which/that distinction.

If I were going to give advice on this matter, I would say to pay attention to the sound of your sentence.