10

If I wish to say something along the lines of

Consider the bear that scratches his head.

It seems to me that I could instead say

Consider the bear which scratches his head.

I am unsure which of these is correct, if it even matters.

Does anyone know a rule which makes this clear?

herisson
  • 81,803
BBischof
  • 823

3 Answers3

13

That is restrictive, it limits / restricts / specifies the identity of the subject. Using your example, the bear that scratches his head refers to one specific bear -- "the bear that scratches his head".

Which is non-restrictive, meaning it refers to something incidental about the subject. "Consider the bear, which scratches its head" refers to the bear (could be a single bear, could be the species), which happens to scratch its head.

Hope that helps!

EDIT: ShreevatsaR has pointed out that this is a convention, not a grammar rule. In the end it doesn't "matter", use the convention if it appeals to you. Here is MW's take (thanks, nohat).

TatiLati
  • 576
  • 12
    This is not an actual rule of English grammar, just a convention that some people have chosen. Using "which" for restrictive clauses (e.g. "the bear which scratches its head") is extremely common in English, by many good writers. Follow this convention only if it appeals to you; it's not a part of grammar. – ShreevatsaR Oct 08 '10 at 04:05
  • @ShreevatsaR That is interesting. Do you have a citation for this? (I'm not testing you, I am truly interested). – Chris Oct 08 '10 at 05:04
  • 2
    Just wanted to add the obligatory language log link echoing ShreevatsaR, one article among many: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000918.html – Ophiuroid Oct 08 '10 at 05:11
  • 5
    ShreevatsaR is correct. Here is the relevant page in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. – nohat Oct 08 '10 at 05:31
  • Of course, the Language Log is silly too; if editors at some publication do want to enforce this strange convention (and some do), it's perfectly their prerogative to do so; Geoffrey Pullum acts like a silly "grammar nazi" in the sense of insisting that grammar must be the only thing that ever decides what gets used. – ShreevatsaR Oct 08 '10 at 05:31
  • @ShreevatsaR Fair enough, my grammar nazi English teacher drilled that convention into my head years ago. It doesn't really matter which you use, one could be understood either way. – TatiLati Oct 08 '10 at 18:18
  • Ah carp! Well now what should I do about acceptance of this answer :/ – BBischof Oct 08 '10 at 18:39
  • I'll add ShreevatsaR and friends' info into the answer – TatiLati Oct 08 '10 at 18:51
1

What the other answers have said about "which" having to be used with commas (or in non-restrictive clauses) is wrong. "Which" has long been used by respectable writers in restrictive clauses as well. And when it's used in a restrictive clause, it's wrong to use a comma before it. There's a separate question about this: When to use “that” and when to use “which”?

Consider the bear which scratches his head.

This sentence does sound wrong, but for another reason. "Which," whether used restrictively or nonrestrictively, has a strong tendency to be used with inanimates. For this reason, "which... his" sounds bad, because "which" implies you're thinking of the bear as an object, or at least as a not-very-animate thing, while "his" implies you're thinking of the bear as a person, or at least as a somewhat animate being. "Consider the bear who scratches his head" would be better, or, as the other answers mentioned, you could use "that" and say "Consider the bear that scratches his head." (In general, "that" is not as common as "who" when referring to people, but either is grammatical.)

ShreevatsaR in a comment mentioned a third option, "the bear which scratches its head." This doesn't sound as clashingly bad to me as "which scratches his head," but it also doesn't sound as good to me as any of the alternatives I listed in the previous paragraph.

Community
  • 1
herisson
  • 81,803
0

One practical, grammatical difference is that, in writing, 'which' will be preceded by a comma (or other visual pause).

mfg
  • 2,554
  • Is this true?! If this is in fact correct, thank you for pointing this out, as I had no idea. :/ +1 for now, but can you give a reference? Not that I think you are lying, but I am a bit paranoid now with respect to colloquialisms vs rules. This site is making me ever more nervous. – BBischof Oct 08 '10 at 19:27
  • http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/which-versus-that-advanced.aspx ; http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm ; http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/ ; http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm – mfg Oct 13 '10 at 16:13
  • Speaking of commas, my usage above is visually hilarious and I can barely follow it. – mfg Oct 15 '10 at 13:00