Which that
In my writing, I observe the distinction between that and which, using that for restrictive modifying clauses and [comma] which for nonrestrictive clauses. I try to teach my students the difference, but I do not make it a topic of intense focus in the first-year legal-writing course.
When you see mistakes, the mistake is almost always using which without a comma. Thus, the reader is not entirely sure if you intended a restrictive clause but misused which or a nonrestrictive clause but neglected the comma. Like this:
The lawnmower which is broken is in the garage.
This could mean—
The lawnmower that is broken is in the garage.
- I have more than one lawnmower, and the broken lawnmower is in the garage.
or
The lawnmower, which is broken, is in the garage.
- I have one lawnmower. It is in the garage. By the way, it is broken.
Are you still with me?
Well, yesterday I read this sentence. The writer used [comma] that for a nonrestrictive clause—something you almost never see:
- Agent Diaz said he engaged in a conversation with Mrs. Hanover through a window at her apartment and delivered, to her husband, a copy of the subpoena, that Mr. Hanover placed on the kitchen table.
Perhaps of interest only to writing nerds.
Filed under: Usage
I usually put comma before “that” only when I want to separate an “inserted” clause from the rest of the sentence (adverbial phrase, extended example etc.). In your example, I would replace “that” with “which.”
BTW, I was taught that “which” is perfectly alright in both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, because the restrictive/non-restrictive function is indicated by the presence or the absence of the comma, but in my writing I now prefer to use “that” for most restrictive clauses for my readers’ convenience – a comma is easy to miss in the heat of the moment.
Obviously, the author of the sentence doesn’t understand comma usage generally since he separated the prepositional phrase “to her husband.” There shouldn’t be any commas in the sentence at all. However, I think he should have continued to identify Mrs. Hanover’s husband as “her husband” in the last clause instead of “Mr. Hanover.” I think it would have made it slightly less confusing. Finally, did all that happen at the same time? Was he talking to Mrs. Hanover as he handed the subpoena to Mr. Hanover? Did he pass the subpoena through the window? The whole sentence is a mess.
I believe that is a common – yet serious – mistake.
In the presented case, the root of the problem might have been the difference between the spoken and the written.
While speaking, there is in fact a pause in that ‘moment’ of the sentence – therefore, commas are included in the written sentence…A simple ‘oral infection’ of the written speech which reveals the writer could use some more reading and less hearing, as indeed most of us, nowadays.
On the other hand, there is the ‘abstinence’ syndrome: the writer avoids commas that do not correspond to the ‘spoken moments of pause’. This may correspond to an actual statement of incompetence. Not knowing where to place the commas, the commas are suppressed. Therefore, this nonoccurrence may reveal there is in fact, to some extent, actual knowledge on commas use, even though limited…
The other extreme would be the ‘scatter syndrome’, condition that causes the writer to spread commas along the written speech as if to display an elaborate dish, with ‘commas topping’.
In such case, the writer might believe everyone else to be equally ‘connoisseur’ regarding written language, or even that the ‘topping’ would be a plus for the final ‘image’ or ‘picture’ of the discourse, adding some sort of ‘level’ to the speech, ‘dressed up’ to impress a specific range of readers…
This could be the result of having been told that distinctive writing mirrors a distinctive level of instruction and knowledge…
A writing nerd.