A Word Please

Last month as deadline approached and I was looking for a column topic, several readers wrote to ask me about the difference between "that" and "which." Perfect timing. I typed up an explanation, turned in my column and figured I was done with the topic for a year or two.

But I wasn't done.

Several readers had problems with that column. Some found holes in my explanation. Others objected to my saying that it's okay to use "which" with nonrestrictive clauses, also called non-defining clauses. I was out of line, these readers said, to tell20people they can break this rule.

Allow me to address the latter group first. I don't mean to tell people it's okay to break the rule. I mean that there's no such rule. Doesn't exist. It's a myth.

Yes, the "AP Stylebook" and the "Chicago Manual of Style" say to introduce restrictive clauses with "that" and nonrestrictive clauses with "which." But style guides are not grammar rule books. They're playbooks. Their goal is not academic correctness but consistency within a specific publication or publishing house. Anyone who says that either of these books is the final word on language rules has to contend with none other than the legendary H.W. Fowler, who wrote in 1926 in his "Fowler's English Usage" that there is no such rule.

They would also have to contend with "Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" co-author Geoffrey Pullum, who on the LanguageLog.com blog has bemoaned copy editors' practice of "changing 'which' to that in a bid to impose the (completely mythical) generalization that 'which' is not used in [restrictive clauses]."

Then there's Bryan Garner, author of "Garner's Modern American Usage," who, even though he strongly prefers to keep "that" for restrictive and "which" for nonrestrictive clauses, says it's not a rule. It's a "stylistic distinction." And here's the kicker: Garner is the guy who wrote the grammar rules for the "Chicago Manual."

Now, as for the folks who saw the holes in my explanation a few weeks ago: They were right. I failed to make clear what, exactly, is the difference between a restrictive and a nonrestrictive clause.

A restrictive clause, I wrote, literally narrows down the subject. I added: "In 'the car that I was driving was red,' the subject is 'the car.' The relative clause is 'that I was driving' and it literally narrows down the subject. … Compare that to: 'The car, which needed a new transmission, was red.' Here the relative clause 'which needed a new transmission' in no way narrows down the subject of 'the car.' The relative clause just throws in some extra information. It neither restricts nor defines the subject itself."

The shortcoming in this explanation was summed up best by Elizabeth, who wrote:

"Here's what I still don't understand: The car (that I was driving) was red. The car (which needed a new transmission) was red. Both clauses narrow down the subject of20'the car' to distinguish THAT car from a million other cars, so I still don't get the difference."

I replied: "No. They do not both narrow down the subject. Only the first one does. The second one presumes that the reader already knows which car is 'the car.' The 'which' clause is the equivalent of saying 'which, by the way ...' The commas that usually surround a "which" clause accomplish this all by themselves. They cue the reader that this is 'by the way'-type information. So in your first example, you're using 'that' and no commas to tell the reader: 'You need to know this in order to understand which car I'm talking about.' But in your second example, you're telling the reader: 'You already know which car I'm talking about it, plus here's some more detail about it.'"

That did the trick for Elizabeth, and I hope it works for you, too.

June Casagrande is author of "Mortal Syntax: 101 Language Choices That Will Get You Clobbered by the Grammar Snobs - Even If You're Right. She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.