Episode Transcript

“Which” Versus “That”
Episode 195: October 30, 2009

Since Halloween is coming up, I thought you could use a refresher about “whiches”--more specifically, when to use a “which” and when to use a “that.”

Audible

But first, Grammar Girl is sponsored by Audible, the Internet's leading provider of spoken word entertainment. Get a free trial membership and a free audiobook by signing up at audiblepodcast.com/gg.

To understand the difference between “which” and “that,” first you need to understand the difference between a restrictive element and a non-restrictive element, because the simple rule is to use “that” with a restrictive element and “which” with a non-restrictive element. OK, don't worry; it's easy.

Restrictive Clauses and Nonrestrictive Clauses

A restrictive element is just part of a sentence you can’t get rid of because it specifically restricts the noun. Here's an example:

Desserts that contain chocolate please Squiggly.

The words “that contain” restrict the kind of desserts we're talking about. Without those words, the meaning of the sentence would change. Without them, we'd be saying that all desserts please Squiggly, not just the ones with chocolate.

Desserts that contain chocolate please Squiggly.

Restrictive elements aren't surrounded by commas.

Here's another example:

Jackhammers that don't have noise-dampening technology are on sale.

We can't get rid of the words “that don't have noise-dampening technology” because then we'd be saying all jackhammers are on sale, not just the special ones; so that means the clause is restrictive.

And another example:

Dogs that howl make me crazy.

I can't get rid of the words “that howl” because then I'd be saying all dogs make me crazy, not just the ones that howl, which isn't true.

On the other hand, a non-restrictive element is something that can be left off without changing the meaning of the sentence. A nonrestrictive element is simply additional information.

Chocolate desserts, which are his favorites, please Squiggly.

Leaving out the words “which are his favorites” doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence. With or without the words “which are his favorites,” we know that chocolate desserts please Squiggly.   Nonrestrictive elements are surrounded by commas.

Here's another example:

Jackhammers, which are useful for breaking up concrete, are on sale.

We could throw out the words “which are useful for breaking up concrete” and the meaning of the sentence wouldn't change. Those words are just extra, meaning they're non-restrictive, surrounded by commas, and “which” is the right word choice.

And another example.

Dogs, which make great companions, are usually furry.

Again, we could throw out the words “which make great companions” and not change the meaning of the sentence. Dogs are still usually furry. Those words, “which make great companions,” are just extra, meaning they're non-restrictive, surrounded by commas, and “which” is the right word choice.

A Quick and Dirty Tip? If you think of the Wicked Witch (Which) of the West from The Wizard of Oz, you know it’s okay to throw her out. You won’t change the meaning of the sentence without the whichphrase. So, you can throw out the which (or witch) clause, commas and all. If you can safely throw out the “which” and the meaning of the sentence doesn't change, then you know “which” is the right choice. If you try to throw out the clause and it does change the meaning of the sentence, then you know that the right choice is “that” instead of “which” because it's a restrictive clause. That's the simplified rule that I find works for a lot of people who get frustrated trying to decide which word to use.

“Which” Versus “That” – Advanced

There is a more complicated rule, and I'm going to explain it now, so if you don't want to hear it, stop listening for about 15 seconds.

OK, it's true that the word “that” can only be used for restrictive clauses, but some authorities maintain that “which” can actually be used for both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. One problem with this is that many people don't know that “which” can be used for both. A second problem is that a lot of people follow the restrictive-non-restrictive “rule” that divides the two words, so it's safer to do it that way, since it's always an option anyway. I also believe it's a lot easier to remember the rule if you split “that” and “which” up along restrictive and non-restrictive lines. If you use the simplified tip that it's always safe to throw out the “whiches,” you'll always treat the word “that” properly; but if you love the sound of “which” and want to use it where I'd recommend a “that,” you'll find authorities to back you up, and people shouldn't go around thinking it's clearly wrong to use “which” for restrictive clauses.

“That” and “Which”--Relative Pronouns

I'll finish up with a little grammatical aside. When they're used in the way we've been talking about, “that” and “which” are called relative pronouns. I know it seems weird because you usually think of pronouns as words like “he” and “she.” Relative pronouns don't get talked about as much, but they are real pronouns. They head up subordinate clauses. Other relative pronouns include “who,” “whom,” “why,” “where,” and “when.”

Summary

To sum up, the simplest rule is to choose the relative pronoun “that” when you can't get rid of the clause and the relative pronoun “which” when you can get rid of the clause. Remember that it's always safe to throw out the “whiches.”

Audible

This week a listener from Qatar who goes by “M” wrote in to recommend an audiobook called Avalon High by Meg Cabot. M writes, “It's a lovely story about Ellie, a new student in a normal high school; but not quite normal, because everything will change when she comes to the school.” I listened to the preview, which is a nice thing you can do at Audible, and it sounded great, and it has a bunch of positive reviews too. So take M's advice and choose Avalon High as your free audiobook when you sign up for a free trial at audiblepodcast.com/gg. Audible specializes in the spoken experience, providing digital audio editions of books, newspapers and magazines, and original programming. I've been using it for years, and you can try it free at audiblepodcast.com/gg.

The Grammar Devotional

Also, I'm delighted to tell you that my new book, The Grammar Devotional, is finally in stores! It's not available as an audiobook because it has puzzles and quizzes, so you have to get the print edition.   The first few weeks of sales are really important because they determine whether bookstores keep the book around for Christmas, so if you want it, please go buy it now. It's The Grammar Devotional, and it has 365 easy tips, quizzes, cartoons, and puzzles to help you be a better writer.

That's all. Thanks for listening.

Related Episodes

Of course, “which” and “that” have other uses too. Here are some other podcasts we've done on these words:

Can You Start a Sentence with “Which”?

When to Leave Out “That”

“Who” Versus “That”

Additional Resources

Relative Pronouns from the Online Writing Lab at Purdue.


Comments (16) for “Which” Versus “That” |  Subscribe to Comment

paul smith Says:
11/20/2009 12:39:56 PM
We know paul smith is a very good world Brand .there are content many product. such as Paul Smith Shoes and paul smith bags .That all are popular for many people.
ugg Says:
11/18/2009 3:42:20 AM

It is a great idea especially for relatively new blogs. I’d like to try this.<A href="http://www.mytobling.com/ugg-classic-tall-boots-c-29.html">ugg classic tall</A>

ABC Says:
11/12/2009 1:35:25 PM
A former editor was ruthless concerning the word "that" when used inappropriately. She would have changed Squiggly's dessert sentence to: "Desserts containing chocolate please Squiggly." or "Chocolate desserts please Squiggly." Also: "Jackhammers without noise-dampening ...." and "Howling dogs ..." not "Dogs that howl ..." I don't remember what her argument was. I do feel these sentences read better (they sound more literate) than the sentences using "that".
Justin Says:
11/10/2009 11:39:10 AM
Hey ted, whatsup?
AC Says:
11/8/2009 12:51:56 AM
Sounds pretty good. I think I might get your books. Are these books (almost) the same?: Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing The Grammar Devotional: Daily Tips for Successful Writing from Grammar Girl
Evelyn Q Says:
11/7/2009 8:27:14 PM
Although it's a challenge for me to listen without going through the transcript,well,I'll keep going on until I can talk as a native speaker. Thank you so much!
Alex Guest Says:
11/7/2009 3:30:21 PM
I was rather wondering if damp might not have come of the same actual concept as in a damp sponge. I can damp down a fire or sound because fog, as an example, has those actual effects. It's a bit hard to add moisture to a sound (dampen it), but blow a wooden recorder too long and it will go soggy (mushy, softer, quieter). And dampened wood doesn't burn as easily or as strongly.
Beth Seher Says:
11/6/2009 2:21:15 PM
"Throw out the witches"--I will always remember that! How clever. My 7th graders will finally get it. I'll model it with one of my witch Halloween decorations and literally throw her out. Thank you so much Grammar Girl!
ugg Says:
11/5/2009 10:09:51 PM
I think dampening is OK.
ugg Says:
11/5/2009 10:07:51 PM
I think dampening is OK.
Frederico Vasconcelos Says:
11/5/2009 8:00:19 AM
Dearest Teacher Mignon Fogarty, I am from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. My mother tongue is Portuguese, and I study English by myself. So, I love listening your podcasts. I downloaded all of them and listened to them when I park in front of the beach or while I am driving. I love you so much, dearest teacher. Your vocabulary and way of speech are part of my way of speaking. I understand you easily, but because you present a lot of important notes concerning grammar I have to listen to them more than 10 times. As a result, my English is becoming better and better because of you. Here in Brazil you have a student that love you so much. I wish you and your family a mountain of successes because you deserve the best in life. A good person like you deserve the best in life. One detail: each word you say is very important for me. I don´t care about grammar. I concern to understand you. I profess, my English is better because of you. God blesses you so much. Thank you once more. Frederico Vasconcelos.
The Dangling Modifier Says:
11/3/2009 3:23:22 PM
My OED even has a definition of 'dampen' as 'reducing the ampitude of a sound source'. But it also has 'damp' as 'reduce or stop the vibration of' so I think, Rob and Chris, they might be interchangeable... unlike which and that, or sewage and sewerage. http://thedanglingmodifier.co.uk/financial/undertaking-sewers/
Douglas Says:
11/3/2009 11:22:56 AM
Excellent episode. However, I think a key point is buried, and deserves emphasis: "Nonrestrictive elements are surrounded by commas." Meaning, if a comma is required, use 'which', if not, then 'that'.
Rob Says:
11/3/2009 7:54:27 AM
Hey Chris, I just wanted to note that "dampen" is very much a word, as confirmed by my OED. Moreover, dampen doesn't bear any of the same usage problems of "irregardless." (I should note that my spellcheck is highlighting "irregardless" but takes no issue with "dampen"). Perhaps it's a regional difference, as with "quiet" and "quieten." Either way, dampen is entirely standard. It follows a standard pattern of [adjective] + -en = [verb]. Consider "whiten," "blacken," "sharpen," "deaden," etc. Now of course I don't doubt the fact that "damp" has also been used as a verb without adding a suffix, but both words have clearly entered common usage, and both are logical. We can't simply remove "dampen" from the language because "damp" evolved independently as a verb. On the other hand, "irregardless" is seriously problematic. The extra suffix makes the word appear to mean the opposite of its actual meaning. Furthermore, regardless can only have developed AFTER "regardless," a perfectly logical word, had already come into usage. As a final point (and perhaps the only one that really matters) "dampening," whatever your feelings about its origins, has become standard usage. ON the other hand, "irregardless" remains unacceptable after nearly a hundred years of widespread usage. If "damping" sounds more natural to you, then I can see how "dampening" seems redundant. I feel the same way about "quieten," as "quiet" already rings as a verb to me. However, to place this clearly logical construction on par with "irregardless" is way off base.
JLF Says:
10/31/2009 4:28:53 PM
Shorter please.
Chris Napoli Says:
10/30/2009 6:47:49 AM
I think those first two comments are spam. Anyway, I love your podcast, but the word is damping not "dampening." It's like regardless vs. "irregardless." Damping is a real word, "dampening" is not. Keep up the good work!

Add Comment

 *
 *
 *
  Image to deter spam submissions
  To deter spam submissions, please type the letters from the image into the box below:
 *
 
  Fields marked with "*" are required