# That vs. Which (U.S. vs. U.K) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 19, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969 "2010-05-19T04:07:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Disheavel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Disheavel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disheavel)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/1 "2010-05-19T04:07:22Z")
Are the rules for that and which usage identical for U.S. and U.K. grammar? I am used to the U.S. version but am proofreading a piece for a U.K. based trade journal and have so far correct 5 whichs to thats and 4 thats to whichs, but I can’t help feel that the author and I are using different rules. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/2 "2010-05-19T04:24:49Z")
As far as i know, the general rule is the same in both places. “That” is preferred for restrictive clauses, and “which” is preferred for non-restrictive clauses. I have two usage dictionaries on my shelf, an English one and an American one, and both express the preferences that i laid out above. Bryan Garner, the American author, leans more to the prescriptive, and tends to argue that sticking to the rule is best. He says that people who don’t maintain the distinction between “that” and which" probably don’t write very well, whereas people who do maintain the distinction probably do. R.W. Burchfield, the English editor of _Fowler’s_ third edition, notes that the distinction is not absolute, and seems more willing to accept that “which” can be used in place of “that” without too much of a problem. Still, he notes Fowler saying, in the 1926 edition, that things would be simpler if writers maintained the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Girl\_From\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3da27b/32.png) [@Girl\_From\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Girl_From_Mars)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/3 "2010-05-19T04:29:35Z")
I’ve often followed the rule that which will follow a comma - not sure whether this is standard though. (Educated in the US, the UK and New Zealand, so I guess that won’t help you!) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/4 "2010-05-19T04:35:37Z")
> [@Girl\_From\_Mars](#): > > I’ve often followed the rule that which will follow a comma - not sure whether this is standard though. (Educated in the US, the UK and New Zealand, so I guess that won’t help you!) It’s true that “which” will generally follow a comma, but the presence of the comma itself is usually determined by the type of relative clause in the sentence. If the clause is restrictive, a comma isn’t needed (and you can use “that”); if the clause is non-restrictive, then you use a comma (and “which”). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/5 "2010-05-19T04:40:39Z")
The distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses might be clearer with examples. I’ll use the ones given by Bryan Garner in the _Dictionary of Modern American Usage_: **Restrictive:** All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced. **Non-restrictive:** All the cars, which were purchased before 1995, need to have their airbags replaced. As Garner says, a restrictive clause gives “essential information” about the subject of the sentence, whereas a non-restrictive clause generally gives “supplemental, nondefining information.” You can probably see for yourself how the meanings of the two example sentences differ. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/6 "2010-05-19T09:27:40Z")
For me, it’s instinctive. Or instinctual. No, I was right the first time. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/7 "2010-05-19T11:03:54Z")
Most Americans seem to believe there is a rule (concerning restrictive and non-restrictive clauses). Most British people are unaware of any such rule, or if they ever consciously considered the matter, are aware that there is no such rule. They just use the one that happens to seem best (perhaps most euphonious) at the time. Actual language and usage experts, even in America, generally agree with the British. Here are a couple of examples (one American, one a British academic writing in an American periodical): [#1](http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/which.html), [#2](http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497). A quick google search on “which that” should net you many more such examples. The “rule” is one of those stupid, made-up things that get in the way of good writing, like to never, ever split an infinitive, and to never use a preposition to end a sentence with. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/8 "2010-05-19T12:00:10Z")
While I find both which and that can handle nonrestrictive clauses, I find which usually works better in restrictive ones. Using a word other than “that” seems to provide an emphasis that is needed. But that’s just a general trend and making it a rule would not make sense, no matter what Microsoft Word tells you. ---
**Author:** ![Sizzles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@Sizzles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sizzles)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/9 "2010-05-19T12:02:37Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > You can probably see for yourself how the meanings of the two example sentences differ. No, they both have the same meaning to me. Can you explain the difference ? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/10 "2010-05-19T12:39:26Z")
> [@Sizzles](#): > > No, they both have the same meaning to me. Can you explain the difference ? _All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced._ Very specifically about cars purchased before 1995. _All the cars, which were purchased before 1995, need to have their airbags replaced._ The fact they were purchased before 1995 is less relevant, just an aside. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/11 "2010-05-19T12:46:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > As Garner says, a restrictive clause gives “essential information” about the subject of the sentence, whereas a non-restrictive clause generally gives “supplemental, nondefining information.” I’ve seen it expressed: 1. “That” defines. 2. “Which” describes. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/12 "2010-05-19T12:52:18Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > _All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced._ > > Very specifically about cars purchased before 1995. > > _All the cars, which were purchased before 1995, need to have their airbags replaced._ > > The fact they were purchased before 1995 is less relevant, just an aside. Not only that, but the latter implies that all the cars were sold before 1995, while the former, says that certain specific cars, those sold before 1995, need to be recalled. What is probably throwing you is that you wouldn’t expect a place to have sold cars only up until 1995 and then have a recall. Maybe another example is better. My sister Lisa is good piano player. My sister, Lisa, is a good piano player. The former implies that I have more than one sister, and I had to specify which one I was talking about. The latter says I only have one sister, who happens to be named Lisa. The way to tell the difference is that a restrictive clause can be taken out, and the sentence will still have the same meaning. If I take out Lisa, and I have multiple sisters, then I’ve taken out information that you need to know who I’m talking about. If I have only one sister, then taking out her name doesn’t change anything. I hope that’s helps. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/13 "2010-05-19T12:57:45Z")
As a Canadian, we straddle the fence on UK vs. US language and spelling styles. I use “which” a lot more often than Microsoft Word wants me to. I was however born in the UK (Scotland) and my speech patterns were initially formed in that style. I definitely believe that there is a usage distinction between the two continents, but as **njtt** states, the rule is not as firm as most people believe it to be. ---
**Author:** ![Negative\_Lite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Negative\_Lite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Negative_Lite)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/14 "2010-05-19T13:34:51Z")
We must distinguish between RULES and STYLE. The rule is the same everywhere in the world. For non-defining relative clauses (the ones set off by commas), you must use “which,” never “that.” For defining relative clauses, you can use “which,” “that” or sometimes nothing. As for style, many style books on both sides of the pond, including the AP Style Guide and the one the British Guardian uses, propose that “which” never be used in a defining relative clause. One way to articulate this style proposal is “always use “that” unless you can’t.” Some claim this is the better contemporary style, others (like me) think it’s pure bunk or overly simplistic. But there you go. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/15 "2010-05-19T13:49:44Z")
Strunk and White also articulate the same rule set forth by **mhendo**. ---
**Author:** ![ivan732](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aeb1de/32.png) [@ivan732](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan732)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/16 "2010-05-19T14:03:28Z")
I think people really should read **njtt** ’s links, especially the second one ([http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497](http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497)) in which a linguistics professor completely demolishes Strunk & White: _English syntax is a deep and interesting subject. It is much too important to be reduced to a bunch of trivial don’t-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can’t even tell when they’ve broken their own misbegotten rules._ Woah. Don’t sit on the fence there, professor. ---
**Author:** ![Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7993a0/32.png) [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/17 "2010-05-19T14:14:11Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > _All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced._ > > Very specifically about cars purchased before 1995. > > _All the cars, which were purchased before 1995, need to have their airbags replaced._ > > The fact they were purchased before 1995 is less relevant, just an aside. That’s fine, but for me, the following two sentences have the exact same meaning: _All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced._ _All the cars which were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced._ ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/18 "2010-05-19T14:35:25Z")
The way I’d explain the difference in the two sentences is like this. Imagine a parking lot full of cars. In the case of this sentence (All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced.), some of the cars were purchased before 1995 and others were not. In the case of this sentence (All the cars, which were purchased before 1995, need to have their airbags replaced.) all of the cars were purchased before 1995. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/19 "2010-05-19T14:41:37Z")
> [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](#): > > That’s fine, but for me, the following two sentences have the exact same meaning: > > _All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced._ > > _All the cars which were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced._ As a sub-editor, my preference is for the second sentence, assuming it’s for a “Formal” publication like a magazine or newspaper and not a messageboard or newsletter or something inconsequential like that. Ultimately though, a lot of it comes down to which “looks right” in the sentence IME. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969/20 "2010-05-19T17:27:21Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > The “rule” is one of those stupid, made-up things that get in the way of good writing, like to never, ever split an infinitive, and to never use a preposition to end a sentence with. I agree with you about the split infinitive and about ending a sentence with a preposition, but not about “that” and “which.” While seeing someone use “which” in place of “that” doesn’t really worry me too much, i think that preserving the distinction for restrictive and non-restrictive clause is a useful tool that tends to make meaning clearer in many instances. Also, in my experience, most people who use “which” instead of “that” for restrictive clauses tend to do so out of some misguided belief that “which” is somehow more formal or educated. It’s like people who say, “He came to party with Peter and myself.” They’re trying to sound formal or educated, but end up sounding like dunces. I concur with Bryan Garner on the subject: > [@](#): > > The distinction between _that_ and _which_ makes good sense. It enhances clarity. And the best American editors follow it. > [@Negative\_Lite](#): > > As for style, many style books on both sides of the pond, including the AP Style Guide and the one the British Guardian uses, propose that “which” never be used in a defining relative clause. One way to articulate this style proposal is “always use “that” unless you can’t.” Some claim this is the better contemporary style, others (like me) think it’s pure bunk or overly simplistic. But there you go. Garner’s not especially complimentary about British usage in this case: > [@](#): > > British writers have utterly bollixed the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative pronouns. most commonly _which_ encroaches on _that_’s territory, but sometimes too a nonrestrictive _which_ remains unpunctuated. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-vs-which-u-s-vs-u-k/539969.md?page=2)