Your opinion on which/that

transparx wrote:

While I like and appreciate the explanation at the end of your post -especially your discussion of the ambiguity in one of the sentences provided by the asker, I wanted to rectify something.

You write:




I’m afraid this explanation only adds more confusion.
The examples you give have nothing to do with the that/which distinction the asker is asking about.

a.Mice are typically found in fields that (which) lie near houses.

Sentence (a) contains a restrictive adjective (or relative) clause, i.e., "that/which lie near houses," which restricts, or defines, the noun "fields." But this sentence does not imply that “mice ONLY live in this kind of field.” This, I believe, can be easily shown by the following:
b.Mice are typically found in fields that (which) lie near houses, and so are squirrels.
The adjective clause here simply restricts “fields,” that is, it maps the set of all possible fields in the world onto a smaller one, the set of fields that lie near houses.

As for the second sentence, it is not a good example at all. Of course, it is perfectly correct, but this “which” is a different one altogether --a pro-clause rather than a pronoun. In other words, here "which” refers to the whole preceding clause rather than to a noun within it. A rough, informal interpretation of sentence (b) would be (d).
(d) Mice are typically found in fields near houses, and this fact (i.e., [the fact] that mice are typically found in fields near houses) is not entirely unexpected.

In other words, sentence (b) does not exemplify nonrestrictive (or nonessential, as they are sometimes called) adjective clauses.

Kim’s examples are much better in this respect, and they clearly illustrate the distinction under discussion.

Restrictive: (e) The lemmings that performed well in the first race were all fuzzy animals.

Nonrestrictive: (f) The lemmings, which performed well in the first race, were all fuzzy animals.

As Kim points out, sentence (e) is restrictive. What does that mean? It means that we are not talking about the entire set of lemmings existing in the world, but about a smaller set --namely, only those that performed well in the first race- and only about those are we saying that they "were all fuzzy animals." We might as well go on and say completely different things about (the) other lemmings without contradicting ourselves.
As far as I know (and as has been pointed out by others), “which” can be used instead of “that" in restrictive relative clauses. Thus, in this case, one could choose “which” instead of “that.”

Sentence (f), on the other hand, is nonrestrictive. This means that [The lemmings, which performed well in the first race] and [the lemmings] the speaker has in mind are, in fact, one and the same set. In other words, we start with a set -[the lemmings]- and we keep talking about the same set, without restricting it in any way. In this case, "that" cannot be used.

Of course, we could also say something like (g), which would be structurally the same as sentence (b).
(g) The lemmings were all fuzzy animals, which didn’t surprise anyone.
But, again, this is a completely different construction.

Steven Sidore wrote:

The usage provided in Kim's description is not just correct, but mandatory. The two are not interchangeable in a well-written prose.

I can't comment on British (or Canadian) usage, I've not studied them.

Cheers,

Steven

Kim Metzger wrote:

Restrictive clauses, which are essential to the meaning of the sentence, are not set off by a comma. Nonrestrictive clauses, which are not essential to the meaning of the sentence--they merely add further information--are set off by a comma. For example:

Restrictive: The lemmings that performed well in the first race were all fuzzy animals.

Nonrestrictive: The lemmings, which performed well in the first race, were all fuzzy animals.

Lia Fail wrote:

Generally speaking:

1. You can use WHICH OR THAT interchangeably provided there's no comma

2. However, I remeber reading a study to do with translation that came to the conclusions that we overuse WHICH when THAT would be marginally preferable (by Mona Baker, if I remeber rightly). This overuse of WHICH is confirmed in the link on scientific writing provided below.

Lia Fail wrote:
If it's mails, then tehse are the alternative phrasings taht remove the ambiguity:

The system may have blocked e-mails (omission) that were previously not blocked.

The system may have blocked sender e-mails THAT were previously not blocked.

The system may have blocked e-mails from senders WHICH were previously not blocked.

Note that in the 3rd change this is a justified use of WHICH (no comma of course) as it removes the ambiguity that is implied by the THAT possibly referring to mails or senders.

And, finally, if it's senders who are being blocked, this is the alternative, non-ambiguous alternative:

The system may have blocked e-mails from senders WHO were previously not blocked.

Although, given your 2 alternatives, it seems as if it's mails not senders who are being blocked:-)

http://www.safarix.com/0321159810/ch05lev1sec9

Kim Metzger wrote:

By the 20th century, the restrictive-only use of that was fixed. Which, however, does get used for restrictive clauses as well, more often in Britain than in the U.S. For instance, the British lexicographers I worked with in England would define a leaflet for a learner's dictionary as 'a piece of paper which gives information about something', rather than using '...that gives information.'
The choice of which or that in restrictive clauses is more of a stylistic choice--what you think is clearer, what sounds more mellifluous. Sometimes, however, the choice is pretty darned obvious: Nietzche's "That which does not kill me makes me stronger" would be ludicrous as "That that."

eva75 wrote:


I would never use 'which' for a defining clause and consider it incorrect. Like the Economist says, "which informs, that describes. Each time I come across the issue I ask myself the question. Is sth being defined here or is extra information being provided?

Perhaps I am wrong about this, so please do correct me!
Could you please tell me what resource says "which" and "that" are interchangeable for defining clauses.

Note a little off topic: in oral English, I find the use of "which", where "that" would do perfectly well, quite snobby. Anyone else think the same?

To me, the use of both "which" makes no sense here, as I see "sender emails" or "emails from senders" as being one structure, from a logical perspective. I can see why you use "who" though.



[Edited at 2006-10-09 19:16]

[Edited at 2006-10-09 23:24]