That vs Which: The Style Guiders Are Wrong

The which/that issue is one on which I strongly disagree with the style guide writers.

The Guardian's style guide, espousing the currently popular view, says:

This is quite easy, really: "that" defines, "which" gives extra information (often in a clause enclosed by commas)

This is literally bass-ackwards. In proper English, it is the comma -- and the comma alone -- which determines whether the clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. In nonrestrictive clauses (those set off with commas), only "which" is correct. In restrictive clauses, either word can be used, and nowadays most people seem to prefer "that"; but I maintain that "which" is often a better choice, at least in formal writing.

I have logic on my side. 

"Which" is close grammatical kin to "who", "where", "when", and so on. When using these other words, it's obvious that only commas make the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive sense. Also, "which" can be used in prepositional phrases just as "whom" (etc.) can, but "that" cannot. So even granting that one should use "that" for a restrictive clause, one still must switch to using "which" when it follows a preposition. Example: "Websites that get hacked..." but "Websites for which no security..." "That" is a completely unnecessary word. We're better off just using "which" in all cases. 

Given that the word "that" already has two other meanings in English, why overburden it with a third, particularly when there's already another word carrying that meaning?  Let's be reasonable!

I also have history on my side.

• Abraham Lincoln -- generally considered to be a pretty literate guy -- was quite consistent in the usage I promote.
• The authors of the U.S. Constitution had no qualms about using "which" for restrictive clauses: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." and at least five other instances, not counting those where the clause is prepositional. (To be fair, there is also one instance of using "that" for a restrictive clause in the Constitution).
• Similarly, George Washington, in his First Inaugural Address, uses "which" 17 times, "that" twice.
• In the first two Federalist Papers, "which" is used eleven times, and "that" is never used.
• In the Declaration of Independence, "which" is used six times, "that" never.
• William Jennings Bryan, in his famous Cross of Gold speech, uses "which" 14 times, "that" once.
• Taft, in his Inaugural Address, uses "which" 28 times, "that" 8 times.
• Winston Churchill, in his Their Finest Hour speech, uses "which" 20 times, "that" twice.

(To reiterate: I'm only counting non-prepositional restrictive clauses, i.e. those places where "that" could reasonably substitute for "which".)

Interestingly, Strunk and White, in their classic Elements of Style (1918), do not address this issue, but they clearly believe in the validity of "which" for restrictive clauses, as can be seen in their own writing:

• "Each sentence is a combination of two statements which might have been made independently."
• "A common fault is to use as the subject of a passive construction a noun which expresses the entire action..."
• "A common violation of conciseness is the presentation of a single complex idea, step by step, in a series of sentences which might to advantage be combined into one."
• "The effectiveness of the periodic sentence arises from the prominence which it gives to the main statement."
• "... if the favor which you have requested is granted ..."

If it's good enough for Strunk and White, it's good enough for me. ;-)

A friend pointed me to this good article. It makes all the same points as I, yet it still insists on drawing the opposite (i.e. wrong) conclusion! Here's another good article with comments. I generally agree with the contrarian commenter "Warsaw Will".

Here's my big peeve: People have gotten so accustomed to using "that" for restrictive clauses... that it's now, unfortunately, increasingly common to see people using "that" with non-restrictive clauses! E.g.:

The monthly meetings, that tend to run long, ...

Even worse is the disgraceful tendency to go one step further and use a form of "that" when the sense is possessive, i.e.

The monthly meetings, that's attendance is on the decline, ...

Gag me.

And this is why I believe it is sound advice to recommend that writers entirely avoid using "that" for relative clauses, at least as a default. I would prescribe the rule of thumb thusly:

• Would you have to use "which" if the clause were prepositional? (e.g. "those with which") If so, then use "which" even if it's not prepositional.
• Would a word like "who/whom", "when", or "where" fit in the place (disregarding the semantic impropriety)? If so, then use "which", not "that".

The argument about commas -- whether the use of "which" sans commas could lead to a question in the reader's mind as to whether commas were intended but inadvertently omitted -- is a straw man. We have no such issues when dealing with "who/whom", "when", "where"; therefore, so no such issue should be imagined with "which".

And to belabor the point further:

	When would -- ?	At times when --	Whenever --
	Where could -- ?	In places where --	Wherever --
	Who should -- ?	People who --	Whoever --
	Which might -- ?	Those that -- [ugly thing]	? [no such thing]
Clearly, the only cure is more cowbell, in the form of the following:
	Which might -- ?	Those which --	Whichever --

And to be quite clear, those last two forms are restrictive, not nonrestrictive.

On "Which Hunting"

The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White, says (at least in my 3rd edition, dated 1979):

The careful writer goes which-hunting, removes the defining [i.e. restrictive] whiches, and by so doing improves his work.

But that's a steaming pile of whatsit. I don't know where S&W got the idea that restrictive clauses are bad, but no modern writer agrees with that sentiment. Anyway, eliminating restrictive clauses altogether should not be confused with choosing one word over another to begin restrictive clauses.