And which is it to be?
As writing gets more colloquial, the rules of subbing loosen up, says WYNFORD HICKS, but meaning must still be clear
Many traditional grammatical “problems” seem to be disappearing. What about the classic “which/that” distinction? Isn’t that dead?
Many journalists now routinely use “which” instead of “that” in defining clauses. They have no qualms about writing “The house which Jack built” rather than the traditional “that Jack built”. For a non-defining relative clause — “Fred bought Jack’s house, which was built in 1937” — they would also use “which”.
The difference is also apparent in punctuation. Before a defining clause there should be no comma because the clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence. But with a non-defining clause a comma is needed to show that it introduces incidental information.
But problems remain with longer sentences in which both “that” and “which” are used: “They introduced levels of comfort and sophistication to the west that had not been seen before and which were not seen again for hundreds of years.”
Why the variation? Why is “that” followed by “which”? Unless the writer wants the first clause to be seen as defining and the second non-defining, the variation is pointless. And if the writer does want to make this distinction, they’re swimming against the tide — who’s going to get the point?
Here’s another example, from a book review: “A book that can be recommended by Men’s Health — for whatever reason — and which can still insert such ideas into people’s heads has to be welcomed.”
It looks as though both writers are using variation for its own sake, on an assumption that good writers avoid repeating anything. But if “that” and “which” are interchangeable why not stick to one of them? Or, better still, why not cut the second one altogether (“levels of comfort...that/which had not been seen before and were not seen again...”)?
One more example (this time, alas, from the NUJ Code of Conduct): “...with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means”...
Here the word “both” removes any possible ambiguity. It makes it clear that the two clauses have the same grammatical function — and so should not be introduced by two different words.