Will someone please clarify for me when to use that and when to use which? With examples. Thank you.
It all comes down to whether or not the detail is important.
They both convey a further detail about the subject: “That” is used when the detail is essential to the sentence; “Which” is used when the detail is merely an aside.
Hopefully someone else will come along and provide a far better answer than mine.
The firefighters drove to the house that was on fire.
He drove his new car, which was quite fast, to pick up his children at Grandmother’s house.
In the first sentence, if you take out “that was on fire” the sentence loses some of its meaning: which house is important to the understanding.
In the second section, the “which was quite fast” bit is an aside, and can be removed easily without affecting the meaning of the sentence.
“Which” phrases always have commas setting them off; “That” phrases do not.
(and somehow it seems that this is probably explained very well all over the Internet)
The That/Which distinction you’re referring to is a myth.
Example: That which does not kill you makes you stronger.
What about this?
That’s (heh) a separate usage of “that”. It’s not the kind where you’re conjoining clauses, it’s the kind where you’d point to an object and say “That…that thing…over there.” In your case, it’s short for “That set of things”
Ok. You hear them used consecutively so I had to ask.
Except it’s a wonderful example of how the supposed rule in question is in fact no rule at all.
The “rule” would require that we say instead
“That that doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”
but of course this is wrong.
Wrong in the sense that you are not required to say it, though it is grammatical, if clunky.
As Frylock notes, the spurious rule is that relative clauses introduced with “that” must be restrictive while relative clauses introduced with “which” must be non-restrictive.
The actual rule is that relative clauses introduced with “that” must be restrictive, but relative clauses introduced with “which” may be either restrictive or non-restrictive.
The only possibility which is actually prohibited is that of using “that” with a non-restrictive relative clause.
[I’m lazy and will leave it for others to explain more clearly what restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses are, though it’s essentially the distinction made by **minor7flat5**]
This is really not a grammatical issue, but a matter of style. Some manuals on style will use these words one way, and others will use them another way. The Chicago Manual is one frequently used. You can search that and see what it recommends.
Some say “that” should not be used in referencing people, but here’s a famous poem that violates that rule:
As a beauty I am no great star;
There are others more beautiful by far;
But my face, I don’t mind it
Because I’m behind it.
'Tis the people in front that I jar.
Hmmm… after this discussion, I’m getting a better idea of why I’m having trouble with this…
Ignore this!
I suppose that’s in response to me. Let me put it this way: If you’re a native English speaker, then you already have a fine ear for what can be used where, even if you’re not consciously aware of the factors determining this.
The most important principle which can be stressed for your conscious understanding is that there are situations in which both “which” and “that” are acceptable; indeed, every situation (of the sort discussed in this thread) where “that” can be used is also one where “which” could be used just as well. People pretend otherwise, but they are wrong.
Here’s how I learned it:
“Which” is used when conveying more information about the only thing that is relevant.
“That” is used when you are also saying which of many things you are going to give me more information about.
Examples:
-
You walk into a typical office conference room, and there are hats all over the place (some on the floor, some on the table, some on chairs). You want to tell me something about the hats on the table. So you’d say “the hats that are on the table are blue.”
-
You walk into a conference room and there’s only one hat, and it’s sitting on the table. You want to tell me a couple of things about that hat. So you’d say “the hat, which is on the table, is blue.”
A good rule of thumb is that if a comma feels right before it, then use “which” instead of “that.”
I don’t buy this at all. I was blessed with a mother who knew English grammar. I learned to speak English from her. I really do not understand grammatical rules, but I know what sounds right to me. I have friends, however, who are native English speakers who can hardly string words together properly, much less write a proper sentence. Their “fine ear” simply did not exist.
They may not be able to write a proper sentence, but unless they have severe language disorders (the sort associated with actual brain damage), they can certainly speak “properly”; perhaps not eloquently, and perhaps with a stigmatized dialect as opposed to a prestigious one, but certainly grammatically according to the rules of their native variety of English.
It’s one of my favorite Usage Notes in American Heritage dictionary.
Rand Rover has it correct, I believe. The two words are not interchangeable, and one can’t always tell by ear. “That” refers to a whole group, and “which” refers to the one thing right before the comma before the word “which.” You hear which used a LOT when it should be that. Thanks!
In addition to the “The hat, which is on the table, is blue” (the hat, which among other things happens to be on the table, is blue) which Rand Rover notes, one can also say the (homophonous but not synonymous) “The hat which is on the table is blue” in a restrictive sense. It would mean something different, of course, but that’s ok; it would be synonymous with the also possible phrasing “The hat that is on the table is blue”; i.e., “There are many hats with many colors, but the particular hat on the table is blue”.
Again, restrictive relative clauses (the kind that “refers to the one thing right before the comma”…) can be phrased with either “that” or “which”! The only rule is that one cannot use “that” with a non-restrictive relative clause (the kind that “refers to a whole group”). You can only use the word “that” for the meaning in 1. above, but you can freely use either “that” or which" for the meaning in 2.
There’s a supposed rule against using “which” for the meaning in 2, but that “rule” is factually incorrect (as demonstrated by empirical evidence rather than made-up pronouncements) as a description of how the English language works.
I think they are pretty much interchangeable, at least in spoken English, in which the parenthetical nature of the non-restrictive clause can be conyeyed by a slight pause before the word “which” or “that”:
The cat, which is under the tree, is black.
The cat, that is under the tree, is black.
They mean the same thing and to me neither is incorrect. The second one sounds more informal, true.
With respect, I disagree. First of all, I would never write the second sentence with commas or pause when saying it aloud. Second, I don’t think they mean the same thing. Or, at the very least, they don’t imply the same thing.
The first sentence is a rough analogy of “The cat is black. Oh, and by the way, it’s under the tree.”
The second sentence is the answer to the question, “What color is the cat under the tree?”
On a related note, FWIW, IMHO, AFAICT, IME, etc. etc. etc., the use of which with restrictive clauses is a lot more common in British English than in American. I’d always assumed it was correct there (UK) and not here (US). Whatever the correct/incorrect issue, I certainly see it a lot more in Britwrite than in Murrican.