"Which" and "that"

[Paul Frank]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 07:09:09 -0700, James Smith wrote
> I support "which/that" prescriptivism, in particular
> in formal language.  I find documents written in
> compliance with this rule are easier to read and
> clearer than those that ignore it, e.g, peer-reviewed
> articles; text books; and federal and state
> legislation, rules, regulations, court decisions, and
> so forth.
>
> For general and informal usage, I - like most people
> IMO - ignore the "rule" with no great harm.  I first
> encountered this rule in graduate school - perhaps it
> is not meant for the unwashed masses. :)
>
> James D. SMITH

I also follow the "which/that" rule in my written work, but that's just a habit drummed into me in
grad school at the University of Michigan and at Harvard. No one ever mentioned it at Leeds
University in Yorkshire, where I spent three years. I don't think it makes texts any clearer.
British books and publications don't follow this rule. Check the Guardian, Independent, or (if you
can stomach it), Murdoch's London Times. The Economist, a British publication read by more Americans
than Britons, includes the “which/that” rule in its style guide, but often flouts it in its
articles. Economist journalists are supposed to steer a middle (or mid-Atlantic) ground that won't
offend folks on either side of the wet bit.

Paul
_________________________________________
Paul Frank
English translation
from Chinese: humanities and the social sciences
from German, French, and Spanish: sinology
Ancienne Forge, Huemoz, Switzerland
www.languagejottings.blogspot.com
e-mail: paulfrank at post.harvard.edu