June 2003
Our Friend "That"
by Robert C. Cumbow
Who would have imagined that my humble ruminations on writing errors ("Top 10 Writing Errors for Law Students (and Lawyers) to Improve Upon in 2003," March Bar News) would have drawn so much response? Within a week of the article's appearance, I was up to my ears in e-mail from people wanting more, and suggesting their favorite bugaboos or pet peeves as topics for a second article. Once the kind folks at Bar News gave me the opportunity to do a sequel, I faced the tough task of choosing a topic from among the many suggestions I had received.
I finally decided to write about "that." One of my reasons for doing so was that a lot of people who wrote or talked to me about my earlier article hoped that I could clear up the difference between "which" and "that." But, handily enough, the word "that" raises some other issues as well. So I figured that by taking "that" as my topic I could cover a lot of ground without resorting to the tired old "top 10" structure I fell back on last time.
1. Who or That?
Let's warm up with a little light exercise. Is it okay to say, for example, "the woman that was driving the car"? It's heard often enough, but something about this construction jars us. It isn't exactly incorrect. Indeed, there are distinguished literary precedents, such as Edgar Allen Poe's "The Man That Was Used Up," Mark Twain's "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg," Thomas Carew's poem "To a Lady that desired I would love her," and the grand old song "The Man That Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo," so memorably sung by Peter O'Toole to the crags flanking a wadi early in Lawrence of Arabia. On the other hand, we have G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday, Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much, Mother Goose's "The Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe," and "The Man Who Wasn't There" (who began life in a piece of doggerel verse by Hughes Mearns1 and was more recently personified in a Coen brothers film). Since "man," "woman" and "lady" are personal nouns, "who" just sounds a whole lot better.
If you want a rule, though, the closest you'll get is this: "Who" is used for people, "which" is used for things, and "that" may be used for either. This, at least, is the policy set forth by Theodore M. Bernstein, the late, great usage guru of The New York Times. The Associated Press, by contrast, adheres to a stricter rule in its Stylebook: Use "which" to introduce a nonessential clause referring to an inanimate object or an animal without a name, "that" to introduce an essential clause referring to an inanimate object or an animal without a name, and "who" or "whom" to introduce an essential or a nonessential clause referring to a human being or an animal with a name.
What's this essential and nonessential business? You may well ask; but to answer, we have to turn to our second topic.
2. Which or That?
What the Associated Press Stylebook calls essential and nonessential clauses are traditionally and more familiarly referred to as restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. A restrictive clause is a clause that identifies the noun it is attached to and cannot be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. A nonrestrictive clause provides incidental information, which can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. The preceding two sentences not only state, but also illustrate, the proper use of "that" and "which."
What do we mean when we say a restrictive clause identifies the noun it is attached to? We mean that without the restrictive clause the sentence would be unclear; the reader or listener would be confused. If a witness described an auto accident by saying "the car hit the other car," the information would be singularly unhelpful. On the other hand, the following statement might be useful: "The car that was turning hit the car that was going straight." Because the clauses "that was turning" and "that was going straight" identify the respective cars, they are restrictive, or essential, clauses. Without them we would not know which car was which. And, because these are restrictive clauses, they are properly introduced by the word "that" (and, by the way, please note, not separated from the nouns by commas).
A nonrestrictive clause provides information that is nonessential, information that can be left out. "The White House, which was first2 built in the 1790s,3 is the official residence of the President of the United States." This sentence still makes sense, and doesn't lose its main meaning, if we exclude the information about the date of the building of the White House. It is a nonrestrictive clause, and is thus introduced by "which" (and set off by commas from the noun it refers to).
Strunk and White, in The Elements of Style, provide an excellent illustration of the difference between a restrictive clause, introduced by "that," and a nonrestrictive clause, introduced by "which." The sentence "The lawn mower that is broken is in the garage" tells us the location of the broken lawn mower. Its fullest meaning is, "We have more than one lawn mower, one of our lawn mowers is broken, and that one is in the garage." Contrast this with the sentence "The lawn mower, which is broken, is in the garage." This sentence's fullest meaning is, "We have only one lawn mower, it's in the garage, and (by the way) it's broken."
In trying to decide whether to use "which" or "that," simply ask yourself whether the clause to be introduced by the disputed word is essential to what you have to say, or is an incidental bit of information that could just as easily be left out without harming your message. Or, if you prefer, ask yourself whether you could insert the phrase "by the way" into the clause and not lose your meaning.
A good test is to say the sentence to yourself both ways, using "which" and then using "that," and choose the way that sounds right. This isn't sure-fire, but it works most of the time. That's because most of the time people use "that" correctly when speaking. It's only when writing that many of us get overcome with attacks of stuffiness and convince ourselves that "which" is the better word because it somehow sounds more important, more formal, more — dare I say it? — legal. At times like those, stop a moment and remember The Little Engine That Could. Would you have wanted that book read to you as a child if it had been The Little Engine Which Could?
Why does any of this matter? Partly because we want our writing to sound as right as our speaking. And partly because it can really make a difference sometimes. The sentence "The room had a window that overlooked the park" means that the room may have had several windows, but one of them overlooked the park. The sentence "The room had a window, which overlooked the park" means that the room had only one window, and, by the way, it overlooked the park. The sentence "The room had a window which overlooked the park," without a comma before "which," could have either meaning; it's unclear. You don't have to be a mystery writer to imagine a legal situation in which the distinction could be important.
3. To That or Not to That
One other problematic issue involving the word "that" is whether to use it at all when it introduces an independent clause. Should I say, "Tom told me the Mariners had won the game," or "Tom told me that the Mariners had won the game"? Both are correct, and neither sounds awkward or confusing. But, depending on the meaning and the construction, sometimes "that" is definitely needed, if only to keep your reader from saying "what?" and having to go back and reread.
Consider, for example, this sentence from a recent appellate court opinion (from another state, where the judges don't write as well as they do here in Washington): "The plaintiff next argues the district court erred in finding the statements were not susceptible to a defamatory meaning." Be honest, now: Admit that you had to scan that sentence more than once. It gives us three clauses — "the plaintiff argues," "the district court erred," and "the statements were not susceptible" — strung together without any relational signposts to help us on our way. Hard to hack our way through that jungle, isn't it? Adding a couple of that's may not turn the sentence into a model of compelling prose, but it makes it easier to understand the first time through: "The plaintiff next argues that the district court erred in finding that the statements were not susceptible to a defamatory meaning." By the way, the court that wrote that sentence actually did know the right way to do it: In their very next sentence the judges wrote, "We disagree, and find that the district court properly found that the article was not susceptible to defamatory meanings." (Emphasis added.) What, one wonders, made them lose their heads so badly in the preceding sentence?
Sometimes want of a properly placed "that" can make a sentence not only difficult to navigate but downright ambiguous: "The Governor said after he learned of the resignation he called the Attorney General." Does the phrase "after he learned of the resignation" tell us when the Governor "said," or when the Governor "called the Attorney General"?
There's no rule here. In fact, we're no longer talking about grammar or usage, but simply about clarity. The test is, does it sound right? Does it read clearly on the first try? Does it mean what you want it to mean?
"That" is your friend. Treat it nicely.
I hope that helps.
Robert C. Cumbow is a shareholder with Graham & Dunn, Seattle, where he counsels clients in beverage, food, communications, entertainment and other businesses, on trademark, copyright, advertising and media law. He teaches at Seattle University School of Law and has written extensively on law, film, food and language. He published parts of this article in a different form in "The Subverting of the Goeduck: Sex and Gender, Which and That, and Other Adventures in the Language of the Law," in the University of Puget Sound Law Review (now Seattle University Law Review) 14:3, Spring 1991.
NOTES
1. As I was walking up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd stay away!
— Hughes Mearns (1875-1965)
2. The word "first" may seem superfluous until one recalls that the White House was built more than once.
3. The New York Times would have me say "the 1790's," but I expressed my views on that in my previous article.
Back to table of contents >>
