H. W. Fowler suggested that
“if writers would agree to regard that as the
defining [restrictive] relative pronoun and which
as the nondefining [nonrestrictive], there would be much
to gain both in lucidity and in ease” (774). Years
later, Fowler’s suggestion has become a rule for many
writers. That rule is hotly debated, however, with some
experts arguing that it is at best a rule of thumb that
allows exceptions.
Why do many writers find
the distinction useful? Consider the following sentences, given by Bryan Garner:
All the cars, which were purchased before
1995, need to have their airbags replaced.
All the cars that were purchased before 1995
need to have their airbags replaced.
(648)
Both sentences are correct, but their meanings
differ. The first sentence means that all of the cars
were purchased before 1995; the second means that only
some of them were. The difference in meaning could
amount to real dollars for the company paying for the
replacement.
How do we readers
perceive the difference in meaning? First, the presence
or absence of commas signals the writer’s intended
meaning (unless the writer has punctuated the sentence
incorrectly). Second, the writer’s use of which
or that may reinforce the meaning, but only
if the writer follows Fowler’s rule.
Let’s see what
happens when a writer chooses not to follow the rule.
Here is an actual example—one that caused much debate
between moderate and conservative Republicans at their
convention in 1984:
We therefore oppose any attempt to increase taxes
which would harm the recovery.
The absence of a comma before the which clause
sends one message to readers: We oppose only those tax
increases harmful to the recovery. The choice of
which could, for some readers, send the opposite
message: All tax increases are harmful to the recovery.
Adding a comma before which would express that
meaning unambiguously. Those Republicans who opposed all
tax increases won the battle—simply by inserting a comma
before which.
Clearly the
distinction between which and that is
useful. But do we have to observe it religiously? Some
experts don’t think so. They agree that we must use
which when our meaning requires commas, but when
our meaning requires no commas, they find either
that or which acceptable.
R. H. Copperud goes
so far as to say, “The prejudice against which
with restrictive clauses [those with no commas] is just
that, however—a prejudice” (347). He feels that placing
so much emphasis on the choice of words distracts
writers from the real issue—whether or not to use
commas. The New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to
Style and Usage makes the same point. It cautions
professional copyeditors against conducting “which
hunts” (blue-penciling every which without a
comma). Far more important is determining whether the
punctuation supports the author’s intended
meaning.
One argument in
favor of allowing an occasional which for
restrictive clauses is based on style. When a sentence
already contains that, the word’s recurrence can
sound awkward. Wilson Follett provides a wonderful,
although farfetched, example:
We believe that that machine that we built that year
does just that. (324)
Adding a
which helps relieve the monotony: We believe
that that machine which we built that year does just
that.
Even in less extreme cases, using more than
one that can at times be awkward. The American
Heritage Book of English Usage gives this example:
“We want to assign only that book that will be most
helpful” (39). In this sentence, the editors of the book
suggest, which simply sounds better: We want
to assign only that book which will be most
helpful.
Conclusion: When you
are writing for a publication that recommends observing
Fowler’s strict distinction between which and
that, by all means comply. Otherwise, observe the
distinction unless doing so results in an awkward
sentence. Above all, make sure your punctuation
expresses the meaning you intend.