A recent reader query:
I'm an attorney and I sometimes have trouble deciding when to use "that" and when to use "which" in legal briefs. If you had any insight that would be greatly appreciated.
Good question. These so-called "relative conjunctions" can be a bit hard to master at first, but with a little explanation and experience using them correctly, they quickly become second nature.
First, the technical answer. If you're familiar with grammar rules, it should make sense:
As a general rule the relative conjunction which introduces nonrestrictive clauses; that introduces restrictive clauses.
In lay terms: If dropping the clause would change the meaning, use that without commas.
Examples:
Jokes that are off-color do not belong in the magazine.
This joke, which is off-color, does not belong in the magazine.
I can see where this becomes important in legal briefs, since each one sets up a different category: restrictive (that; one particular case or class of cases) and nonrestrictive (which; supplemental or nonessential information).
Bryan Garner, in his exhaustive and authoritative Garner's Modern American Usage, offers these helpful guidelines:
First, if you cannot omit the clause without changing the basic meaning, the clause is restrictive; use that without a comma. Second, if you can omit the clause without changing the basic meaning, the clause is nonrestrictive; use a comma plus which. Third, if you ever find yourself using a which that doesn't follow a comma (or a preposition), it probably needs to be a that.
I hope that information, which I've gleaned over years of editing, is helpful to you.
"Conjunction Junction School House Rock!" T-shirt available at CrazyDogTshirt.com



