Skip to main content

Difference between 'which' and 'that' in restrictive (defining) relative clauses


Excuse me if this topic has been brought up before though I couldn't find it. It seems that there are many similar topics related to both defining and non-defining clauses but there is still one question that bothers me. I want to know about the difference between wh- pronouns (who, which, what...) vs. that in restrictive relative clause.


For example: The man that I saw at the mall looked puzzled. The man who I saw at the mall looked puzzled. I omitted commas intentionally, as I'm willing to talk about defining clauses only.


The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language gives quite vague description on that and I cannot think about actual examples:


"Relative clauses are so called because they are related by their form to an antecedent. They contain within their structure an anaphoric element whose interpretation is determined by the antecedent. This anaphoric element may be overt or covert. In the overt case the relative clause is marked by the presence of one of the relative words who, whom, whose, which, etc., as or within the initial constituent: clauses of this type we call wh relatives. In non-wh relatives the anaphoric element is covert, a gap; this class is then subdivided into that relatives and bare relatives depending on the presence or absence of that." Thanks in advance!


UPD: I know that it seems that in general there is no need to dig for this information but still I need this for my research.



Answer



As Janus Bahs Jacquet states in the comments, the difference is essentially one of formality. The Cambridge Grammar of English states the following general principle:



In a wide range of informal styles, that is used instead of who/whom or which in defining relative clauses. (p571)



This principle is confirmed by Swan in Practical English Usage:



We often use that instead of who or which, especially in an informal style. (p478)



Swan goes on to note:



That is especially common after quantifiers like all, every(thing), something, any(thing), nothing, little, few, much, only, and after superlatives. (p478)



When the relative reference is to a person, Swan states:



That is often used in identifying relative clauses instead of who/whom/which. That is most common as an object or as a subject instead of which. That can be used as a subject instead of who, but this is quite informal. (p482)



The Cambridge Grammar of English notes (of defining/identifying relative clauses):



That may refer to the complement of a preposition, but not when the preposition is placed immediately before the relative pronoun:



  • The other girl that I told you about also lives in Bristol.



So, the following is not grammatical:



The other girl about that I told you also lives in Bristol.



It must be: ... about whom ... . Of course, this very formal usage conforms to the general principle noted above.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more