The which that restricts (The that which restricts)

New comments for this entry are disabled.

September 17, 2009 | The which that restricts (The that which restricts) | 1836 hit(s)

It is a non-truth all too often acknowledged, that a clause in possession of a restrictive relationship must be in want of a that. Any conservative-leaning guide to grammar will insist that you introduce "restrictive" clauses with that, and "non-restrictive" ones with which. Our corporate style guide is no exception; here's our guidance on the matter:

Correct
You will need to supply information about applications that you want to run with Windows.

Incorrect
You will need to supply information about applications which you want to run with Windows.

Correct
Your package contains the subsidiary information card, which you can use to obtain device drivers or local technical support.

No professional linguist takes this seriously. There's no evidence from actual English usage, contemporary or historical, that which is not suitable for introducing restrictive clauses. (You can find recent talk about this on the Langauge Log here.)

Why am I blathering on this? Because I have yet again found something amusing on Facebook. This time it's a description of one of the innumerable games that you can play via Facebook. (As if FB just by itself were not already a yawning time suck.) This particular game appears to be a typing type of game, which is described thusly:

Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast that features multiple power ups!

There is editorial gold here, including a capitalization error (Typing Maniac). But more to the point, it's a rare instance where that and which appear in the same sentence and either both introduce restrictive clauses or (perhaps arguable) are used "backward" per the style-guide rule. Examine:

Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast that features multiple power ups!

It seems clear to me that which is restrictive -- you would not write this:

*Typing maniac is a game, which measures the typing skills.

The that, in turn, could be either of these:

Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast and that features multiple power ups!

Typing maniac is a game which measures the typing skills and the ability to think fast, which features multiple power ups!

The larger point, as noted, is that whatever the style guides say, actual people who speak (or write) English have no notion of this artificial distinction between that and which. (Of course, actual people who write English also need editors, but altho that is amply shown here, we'll leave that discussion till later.)

And we'll not even talk about what multiple power ups could possibly mean, or whether you can pluralize a preposition (ups).

Brian MacDonald 17 Sep 09 - 10:30 AM

I have found the which/that distinction useful in one, and only one, context: Determining whether someone is an editor. Practiced editors can correct an improper which/that instinctively (in text, not speech), and experienced editors can actually explain it, with examples. Any editing test (for hiring freelancers, for example) that doesn't include a which/that trick isn't even trying.

I once got a huge fight with an author over the which/that distinction, but that's a story for another time.

mike 17 Sep 09 - 10:41 AM

>I once got a huge fight with an author over the which/that distinction, but that's a story for another time.

No, no, that's a story for now! :-)

Brian MacDonald 17 Sep 09 - 1:45 PM

All right, it went like this: The author was a retired lawyer, somewhat combative, and with a lot of time on his hands. I was a project editor at the time, and turned the book over to one of my best copyeditors, who did an excellent job on the manuscript. This author used "which" exclusively, and the copyeditor diligently corrected every instance that required it. I most likely didn't even notice. When we sent the manuscript back to the author for review, he called up and was furious at the which/that changes. His opinion was that "which" sounded "more educated," and demanded that we change them all back.

I explained the grammar rule involved, and when the author wasn't satisfied with that, I went to my fallback position, and said that it was a rule according to both our house style and the Chicago Manual. The author responded that if I faxed him the page of the Chicago in question, he'd back down. I told him I'd be happy to, and did so immediately (Section 5.202 of the 15th edition; no idea what edition I was using at the time.) The author then told me he "refused to accept the validity" of the Chicago Manual.

Having done everything within my power to placate the author, I escalated the problem and dumped it on the acquiring editor. The AE called up the author, got an earful about disrespectful copyeditors, and suggest the author "sit down, have a drink, and relax." This was a mistake, to put it mildly. The author was a staunch AA member of many years, and went into a tirade that the AE just had to sit there and take.

After that, the author was so upset at the AE that I looked wonderful by comparison. We had a great relationship, and the which/that issue was never mentioned again.

mike 17 Sep 09 - 2:09 PM

Dang. (Looks like it's 5.42 in the 14th Edition.)

Given the pugnacity of the author, this might have been one for Carol Fisher Saller's advice on "picking your battles" (pg. 37 in her entertaining book The Subversive Copy Editor). As long as there was no ambiguity, obviously. As the LL folks note, this is one of those rules that seems to have a powerful hold over people (well, editors, anyway), not generally with justification. As you noted, most people don't adhere to the distinction or even notice one.

Or, as so many things that we editor types worry about, care. :-)

Broschat 18 Sep 09 - 3:14 AM

The that/which distinction is not an aspect of grammar (in my opinion) but of style. It appears to be purely American, and is a totally conscious decision. It's one of those things from Strunk & White that when you read it just plain makes sense. OK, that's how I'll do it.

It has nothing to do with speaking.

A native French-speaking friend once asked me about this. His English is better than mine (and he'd been a professor all his career), but when he was grading translations from French, his colleagues had brought up this issue, which he'd never heard of. It's purely artificial, and an advancement to writers of English.

To date, I've not encountered the distinction in any British prose.

This is the house that Jack built, which toppled with a loud bang during the next storm.

Brian MacDonald 18 Sep 09 - 4:42 AM

You know, Mike, I might have backed off had it been just me doing the copyedit, but this was a case of an author criticizing one of my copyeditors, who had done nothing wrong. I get defensive about things like that; also, I was a lot younger at the time. And, for the worst reason of all, this was a long time ago, so the edits were done on hard copy, and it would have been a real pain to stet all that. I vaguely recall talking to my manager about it before I got into it with the author, but I can't remember what her advice was.

mike 18 Sep 09 - 7:51 AM

Brian, I was only suggesting that sometimes authors are jerks and if they want to make a Supreme Court case out of some comparatively minor issue, then sure, whatever, Mr. Sounds-More-Educated. As you note, I am more inclined these latter days to let authors get their way than I might have in my earlier days of editing; as with authors who spend years developing a voice, part of my development as an editor has been to learn to tread lightly around that effort on their part. (Still working on that, tho.)

In my time, I've had I think just one writer who ever noticed and commented on my quiet substitutions of that for which. I do it all the time -- style guide says to, after all, plus there are those decades of training -- but I am more sensible these days that, as Broschat says, it's (primarily) a matter of convention.

One of the things about Saller's book that I found interesting is how much time she devotes to author/editor relationships. I think that in my limited sphere, I almost always I deal with authors first hand, and most of them as repeat customers, as it were, and this has been helpful in avoiding some of the issues she brings up. How well I'd do when some blowhard author impeached the entire process, ... well, I hope not to be finding that out soon.

mike's web log/comments